The title basically says it already, which rifle would you guys use as a Dedicated Marksman Rifle (RL equivalent M14DMR)?

I'd pick a random assault rifle from Arsenal (the M-23, for example), apply the Barrel Extension modification and the silencer modification, put on a bipod, and call it a day.

Pick a sporting rifle, mod on semi-auto fire, expand the clip size. Do whatever else you want with it.

The Ares Desert Strike has pretty similar performance no? Semi-Automatic, effective range of 800m.

To copy the DMR further I'd go with an Internal Bipod, Smartgun Underbarrel accessory. Silencer.

Then you can upgrade it as you wish.

The Desert Strike is a purpose built sniper rifle with an effective range of 1650 meters (thanks to its' barrel extension). While it's semi-automatic, it possesses none of the other qualities that would make it a DMR. DMRs are generally precision constructed assault or battle rifles meant to allow conventional infantry formations a few additional options for long range target engagement while not depriving the squad of a door-kicking rifleman.

Admittedly, a Desert Strike with a barrel reduction, melee hardening, and a burst fire modification would fit the performance envelope, it wouldn't be true to the spirit of the DMR.

i'll probably go with the rifle config of the steyr AUG-CSL, the only downside, besides the pricetag and availability, is the integrated gasvent-1 ( drunk designer?), which brings me to another question, would you allow it that the removal of standard modifications gives back the slot this mod would cost?

I'd pick the Ak97, it's not the best or anything like that, I'm just biased!


Don't know about RAW but common sense tells me that if an armorer can add a completely new gas vent system to a weapon preivoesly lacking one, he sure can remove and replace a currently installed gas vent accessory. Can't say that I've seen the rules mention this, but I could have missed it.

If you're comparing to the M14, then a modified sport rifle would work better. Extend the barrel and get some precision optics.

If you're comparing to a DMR version of the M16, then take any generic assault rifle, extend the barrel, put on a bipod, and get some precision optics.

There is not a specific "DMR" (actually you mean SDM-R).

In the spectrum of small arms, when it comes to rifles you basically have the following types, each with a specific purpose:
-Assault Rifle--weapons like the AK47 and the M4, these are used to put alot of firepower across close distances (<200m).
-Battle Rifle--these weapons like the M16 and M1 Garand are used to put semi-precision fire across medium distances (150m-300m)
-DMR-- these weapons like the SDM-R and the SAM-R are accurized battle rifles that are used to engage targets between the normal combat range (<300m) and "sniping" (>500m) this puts the average SDM-R ranges around 200m-600m.
-Sniper Rifles-- are used to provide precision fire on targets in excess of 500m


From there you get into carbines and mission-specific weapons and so on. Another thing to remember is that there is a major difference between military weaponology and Law Enforcement weaponology. Military marksmen usually engage targets at more extreme distances than their LE counterparts, they also use equipment with looser tolerances and that tends to have a higher MOA. A military sniper would have no issue taking a shot at 800m+ in the field, because all he really needs to is just hit his target. A police sniper will often never shoot from any further than 600m, because they need to hit something really specific.

The choice of what weapons a soldier uses in battle (in IRL) is based on the mission that is going to be undertaken and the tactics that it will be accomplished with.

actually there is a DMR which is a modified M14 (NSN 1005-01-458-6235), if i was looking for a SDM-R, i would use one of the assault rifles and give it a extended barrel mod.
but since the M14 uses the 7.62x51 round, which medium maschine guns use, the damage of a DMR in SR4 should be the same as that of a MMG.

(My) Short answer?

FN HAR, with a long barrel.

These days, the best DMR weapons are still things like the H&K MSG-90 and their ilk world-wide. The trend is currently BACK toward the heavyier rounds used by the older battle-rifle conversions (The MSG-90 is a G3 conversion) given an increase in DMR engagement ranges (counter-sniper work and places like Ashcanistan) and the rising incidence of enemies in armor.

Frankly, I always thought the base FN HAR (Which is supposed to stand for "Heavy Assault Rifle" IIRC) should be statted differently:

Name: FN HAR
Range: Sporting Rifle
Damage: 7P
AP: -2
RC: -1 from design - not gas-vent! (-2 w/ shock pad)
Ammo: 25
Availability: (something)F
Price: as is
Conceal: No, seriously...

The DMR version is long barrel, bipod and imaging scope, or smartgun with improved rangefinder and thermal and low-light.

When you use those stats, there is a reason to pick the thing (which is otherwise boring as drek) over say, the AK-97.

I'm also wondering why a shadowrunner would be interested in a designated marksman rifle. The DMR was introduced into the military to extend the capability of the fireteam, not to replace a dedicated sniper. Seeing as most shadowrun groups don't operate as a fireteam anyways, and act more like a group of specialists, I'd think that most shadowrunners would be more interested in an actual sniper rifle. Now, if you're running a mercenary campaign and have backup from a machine gunner and other riflemen, being the designated marksman of the group could be worthwhile. But the way that most typical (non-military) shadowruns I've been involved in play out, you'd be better off with either a dedicated sniper rifle or an assault rifle/machine gun.

Same exact reason, frankly. There are times where a normal assault rifle just isn't going to have the ability to "get out that far". Dedicated sniper weapons tend to be more finicky than DMRs, which are still designed for general infantry use. If the DMR in question also had a little heavier punch (like what I put above) then it's definitely something I'm going to consider. Our team has a plurality of ex-military and paramilitary 'runners on it, and we tend to break things back down along similar lines. It's worked really well so far.

If you run things more like a military squad, then a designated marksman is going to be very valuable. But for a lot of shadowrun teams, when combat happens (if it happens), it's very close quarters, hard, and fast. In a situation like that, a designated marksman is of negligible value compared to a rifleman with an automatic rifle or a machinegunner.

I don't know, a good dedicated sniper is going to drop one foe* per IP, even at CQC ranges. That seems pretty valuable to me.





* any foe other than the troll tank, who they will at least inconvenience.

One of the things to remember is that the DMR isn't as "fragile" as a sniper weapon, so it's not as much an issue to get in close. You don't necessarily NEED burst fire capability. And up at the top, the OP did specify an M14 as a base platform, so that's why I was thinking a REAL statted FN HAR (i.e.: with a "hunting rifle" caliber round). That heavier round can make a heck of a diference at any range.
On the other hand, LWRC (Land Warfar Research Center) came up with a nifty idea that somebody must have cribbed from all the new alternate M16 Uppers being sold these days; Why not make it so you can swap uppers with no tools in seconds? So they came up with a ultra-modern polymer M-4/M-10 (7.62x51 NATO chambered M-16) hybrid called the SABR (Sniper/Assaulter Battle Rifle). It's got a 20-round box magazine full of 7.62 goodness and a 12" close-combat barrel. But the real trick is the other upper, which is kept in an included padded back pouch is a 20" barrel upper with a scope. Swapping them takes only a seconds. And since everything stays locked together, you get DMR accuracy with the long barrel and compact firepower in tight. With the heavier round, you have the ability to take down an armored target in close, something the lighter 5.56 just doesn't do as well against.
It's all about how you allocate roles, and comes under P⁶ (Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance) and my character's a HUGE believer in that.

I think it really depends on how the character's stats look. Really when I saw this my first impression was this.... 5 automatics (+2 Assault rifles), 4 longarms (+2 sniper rifles). Since sniper rifles aren't viable (yes I know with a high edge they are) in close quarters, that means the guy was left with assault rifle or sporting rifle. When looking at a 7 skill over a 4 skill, the 7 skill is more appealing, especially when on average an assault rifle is 6P/-1AP while sporting rilfes tend to class in at 7P/-1AP (correct me if I'm wrong). You get 3 more dice with the assault rifle which basically negates the damage bonus of the sporting rifle and in the worst case scenario, you don't get the same damage as the sporting rifle, but you succeed on your attack because you have that extra hit.

I personally see a use for an indoor precision rifle. So I worked out a compromise with my GM. We have a weapon modeled after the H&K 416 that basically uses assault rifle specs without the FA mode but is classified as a sporting rifle. It also came with some more precision based modifications.

On a side note, my character will likely have two sniper rifles and a third precision rifle sometime in the near future. With smart platforms, does a PC need any special skills to use them, or is it literally give the platform a target/order and it handles it all?

Personally i think the Steyr AUG-CSL in rifle configuration is the closest thing to a actual DMR, 20 round clip (hello g3/M14) dmg 7p -1, add FA mod for close range firepower.

Oddly enough:

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33271



(TD = training day)

Any of the rifles mentioned in this thread, with the addition of some sort of optic, operated by a skilled shooter can fulfill the role.

Gamewise, I'd put Image Mag 1 or 2 on the rifle, add a smartlink and call it good. The idea is that the shooter can engage in CQB and make mid-range shots.

Notice the stats mentioned in the article: hits in 2-3 shots with heavier bullets and 4-5 shots with the lighter guns.

Also notice how a good spotter got the shooter on target...for a target he couldn't see!


RE: Precision Indoor Rifle

WTF? Given the nature of close quarters combat, how much accuracy do you need?

If it's hitting a bullseye 0.1mm in diameter, I have a precision AIR rifle that I used in competition.

If you're talking about killing NPCs, then any of the rifles in the list are just fine for all indoor shooting. The longest indoor shot I can think of that would occur in SR would probably be in a mall. I figure that 200-250 meters would be the longest shot possible IF the mall was laid out without any turns. 50-75 meters is probably more realistic "long range" shot. Any of the rifles mentioned, with the possible additions of Image Enhancement 1 or 2 and smart links, would be highly effective at these ranges.

I love Battle Rifles! In my mind rifles like the G3, FN FAL and M14 symbolize this type of weapon. The M16 however is a clear cut 5.56 assault rifle, in no way can that weapon be said to be a battle rifle, that title is purely for accurate rifles that fire stuff heavier then 5.56.

New american battle rifle called Mk 14 Mod 0 EBR its a thing of pure beauty!

This poster is badly informed, and spewing bad information.

The M-4 is NOT an assault rifle, it's a carbine. It's best described as a magnum SMG.

The M-16 is by definition an assault rifle. AR's are generally effective out to ~300m. Their rounds while can hit things past that lose significant effectiveness. By definition assault rifles fire intermediate calibre rounds like 5.56 or 7.62x39mm (AK-47). The rounds by definition are lightweight and ineffective at extended ranges.

The M-14, and M1 are Battle rifles. They fire full-sized cartridges like 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R generally. They are the descendants of the old trench warfare guns. And while they're not generally accurate past 500-600m for general issue, the rounds retain effectiveness out to about 1000m. With Accurizing like a DMR recieves and optics they can easily hit things at 800m, though again past this is tricky.

800+ is the regime of bolt action sniper rifles.

*waggles hand back and forth*

That really depends on how you're classifying "assault rifle". It has at LEAST as much effective range as the StG-44 or the AK-47, which are the definitive "assault rifles", firing intermediate cartridges to intermediate ranges. As over-generalized as the Shadowrun combat system is, they still fall into that category becayse their effective range is WAY beyond 150 meters. So if we're talking "game mechanics" it is, but IRL it gets murky. By the lousy excuse for legislation the ATF/Homeland Security (and of all the US Government agencies, have you ever head one that sounded more "Soviet"?) pass off as "law", it is most emphatically an assault rifle.


Generally I'd agree here, though most people note that the AK goes for stopping power at short range but looses effectiveness much beyond 200m while even the M-4 is still accurate and effective (with even rudimentary oprical upgrades) to 400m or so. Effectiveness in this case means "hitting the target reliably". The AK is dangerous out another 100m or 150m or so but it's Hail Mary and hope to hit. The M-16 can technically "reach" to 600m, but you're guessing and praying again. And beyond that 400m range, the 5.56 NATO, which doesn't have much penetration power to begin with, really starts to come up short.

Now, I have long assumed that what Shadowrun is actually assuming is a MODERN intermediate-caliber rounds like the 6.8 SPC or especially, the 6.5 Grendel. Both easily are accurate and carry good energy to the 550m max range for an "assault rifle" in Shadowrun. The 6.5, however, is fully accurate with a full-length (as opposed to extended) barrel out past 1000m. Even in M-4 style carbine models, that Grendel round is as acurate as you can point it to about the max in the range charts. From a lot of what I've seen, the "long" and "short" barrels (-20% and +20% respectively) should cover the "effective" range changes for "Carbine" and "DMR" variants of said weapons: 440m and 660m respectively, though with a scope the Grendel's "extreme" would go ot to 1000+m.


Absolutely on the mark. Battle rifles appeared in the West as an answer to the AK-47, but in militaries who still clung to the notion of accurate long-range aimed fire a full-up cartridge was still the preference. Other notables you could have mentioned were the SVT-40, The G3, and probably one of the most numerous: the FN FAL... IF you only require self-loading as opposed to full auto-fire. Full auto drops the M1 Garand and the SVT-40 from the list.


Oh, come on, there are plenty of (admittedly more recent) semi-automatic sniper systems capable of taking those 1000m shots. Sure, the BEST for those REALLY long range shots (1200+m) are still bolt-action (SS in game terms), but the gap is closing rapidly. Mostly, those bolt-action systems are in super-heavy calibers like .460 WBM and the like. (I'm leaving out light anti-tank weapons like the .50 BMG et. all)

The MSG-90 (G3 DMR) can reportedly reach 1000m with a good shooter behind the trigger.

While the sr4 damages have no connection to reality (darn it) there is no reason an M14 dmr would use MMG damage codes.

You are forgetting the difference barrel length and chamber design can affect muzzle velocity and energy. I'm not sure what the m14 dmr's designstion is but I'm pretty sure the barrel won't out perform the m21 sniper rifle, whis is an m14 variant. Since the M21 only develops 89% of the muzzle energy of the m240 MMG that uses the same cartidge I doubt the DMR does any better.

Really, take a sport rifle, add some mods and call it a day. After all an m14 and a .308 are close siblings_ much like the m1 and 30-06. The old semi-auto battle rifles are much closer to sport rifles than anything else.you get better damage and half again the range of an assault rifle_ in keeping with the old battle rifle designation. Add a larger magazine and maybe burst fire and be done with it.

If you'd like stats for the M21, go up a bit to where I posted stats for the FN HAR. But to save you the jump, the key stats would be:

Name: M2 DMR (It's not the same as the M21 Sniper Rifle... increase AP by 1)
Range: Sporting Rifle
Damage: 7P
AP: -2
Mode: SA
RC: - (-1 with Shock Pad)
Ammo: 20 ©
Cost & Availability: Up to you.

There's a logic behind the stats I listed, and if I have time today, I'll try to clean up and finalize a diferentiated (and simple) listing of all the weapons in the game to more closely reflect real-world performance. Essentially, it's cosmetic because none of the mechanical processes change, just the numbers on the charts. That said, there's going to be a reason to own some of the currently less "interesting" weapons.

To the OP...
yeah the one guy (and Karenshara) have the right of it, the one multi-role gun in rifle form w/ 20rd box is probably closest fit. A militarized sporting rifle upped to SA or BF is also a good fit. You'd want sporting rifle ranges w/ a 7P -1 or -2 damage code for a DMR type rifle and generally slightly enhanced ammo capacity. (EG: basically sniper rifle damage code or close to, but at slightly reduced range).


Karenshara:
Yes I'm aware, I've spent time on the range w/ groups like the army marksmanship unit test firing. I told you I could qualify IRL for a SR rating 5 in longarms.

I disagree strongly w/ the M-4 and your 'effective' range arguments. The problem is any kind of body armor and the like. At short ranges the reason I called it a magnum SMG is it has a lot more power than the ubiquitous 9mm. But the 5.56's terminal ballistics are VERY dependant on how much energy/velocity it has when it reaches the target. The M-4 sacrifices barrel length and a lot of that velocity. That distance for the short-barreled M-4 is ~50m (about the same as effective range of SMG's).

You get cover involved (walls, etc.) and the 5.56 loses almost all effectiveness past 50-100m out of that short barrel. Yeah crack shots can hit paper targets at those ranges... but the rounds don't do a lot at those ranges.


As far as the 6.8 and such... I wouldn't call those intermediate calibre in the old sense. They're more of a new generation of round (not really intermediate in the sense of the old AR rounds, and not really same grade the battle rifle loadings. Just as the original AR's were intermediate betwen rifle and pistol, those new rounds are intermediate between AR and full battle rifle loadings now. The japanese had 6.5mm full rifle rounds for a long time in WW2 for example. And really the design intent of the 6.8 is a lot different than that of the 5.56.


The term battle rifle is commonly applied to the WW1 standard issue infantry rifles. As well as all the standard issue rifles of WW2. The M-14, G-3, SVD and the like you mention are all the last generation of those before the rise of the assault rifles. So I disagree a bit (M-14 is basically a rechambered M-1 garand w/ a 20rd detachable box magazine, and the rechambering is because powder improvements meant that a shorter cartridge more suitable to machine guns appeared in the .308 as opposed to the older bigger .30-06 cartridge).


Part of the tactical doctrine of assault rifles, is that if it's more than 300-400m away, Infantry should NOT be shooting it. It's a job for your support weapons elements (machine guns, mortars, radio called in strikes). This is now changing again as this causes too much collateral damage, and field units needed a more precise tool to deal w/ light threats at extended ranges. Hence the reemergence of the DMR training programs and reissuing of the M-14.

Fixed.
CQC=/=CQB
CQC is hand-to-hand combat


*Puts on Gunsmith hat*
Much of what I would say here has already been said, and no I'm not going to specify what as that would draw me into the arguments. Excepting this, the argument of if the M4 is a carbine or AR is pedantic. A carbine, by definition, is a rifle shortened for use in restricted spaces, originally this meant aboard ship but now includes CQB, more specifically, urban combat/house-to-house, no matter if your refering to Enfield Mk4 .303 carbines, M4s, or some of the new M14 variants, makes no difference, by definition, a carbine loses range and power, that's just the way it goes, everything is a trade off. So, the M4, by definition, is both an assault rifle and a carbine. Yes, I realize it's terminal ballistics are more in line with a SMG, it's still both.[/rant]
*Takes off Gunsmith hat*

Because of the way these gun threads tend to deteriorate, I'll likely not come into this one again, I just don't have the energy for it right now. But, I did want to say that I agree with Kerenshara about the complete and total lack of differentiating statistics (excepting the AUG-CSL) between the classes of longarms, i.e. ARs/BRs/Carbines, and while I realize that the Devs were trying to symplify the whole thing for non-gunbunny types, it still irritates the shit out of me to not really have the choices and flexibility that stating those weapons separately would give. This is why I have houseruled it and written my own.[/2nd rant]

I think that's because we differ on the definition of "effective". I am talking about accuracy with enough energy to injure an unprotected person. Be honest; At ANY range over 50m or so, the the 5.56 round just doesn't have ANY penetration power, regardless of barrel length. It's kind of the opposite of the AK-57 which has lots of penetration and stopping power up to the "theoretical" effective range, but you're spraying and praying beyond a couple hundred meters, even if you're really, really good. So when I say "effective" I mean reaching a target with enough energy to hurt, I'm not counting penetration or any of that at all. Both the 7.62 Short Soviet and 5.56 NATO stop being "Effective" generally between 200 and 400 meters because of either loss of accuracy OR loss of power.


On the contrary, they still fall between a heavy pistol cartridge and a full-upp rifle cartridge. They both (6.5 and 6.8 ) fit into the standard STANG magazine (with a different pusher plate IIRC), same magazine well on the lower, and most of the upper hardware except the receiver and barrel themselves are functionally identicall. It's an improved AR Cartridge. And you can't just look at diameter of the payload; That Japanese 6.5mm was a full rifle cartridge.
The design intent of the 6.8 SPC and th 6.5 Grendel ar different, certainly, but not in concept or slot. A battle rifle only carries about 20 cartridges in the magazine ordinarilly, making it of much more limited use in sustained suppressive fire while the much higher recoil makes them less accurate in short burst modes against a particular target. The two new cartridges maintain the low recoil and small size/weight of a typical assault rifle cartridge, so doctrinally they are still identical. The design changes are to help overcome the dual weaknesses of the "intermediate cartridge". The fact that they are now hitting about as hard as a full-up rifle cartridge and can reach as far again doesn't mean they aren't still taking up the same doctrinal position. (Frankly, I'm interested in what the "modernized" 7.62x51 NATO is going to wind up looking like, once somebody devotes the same loving attention to computer-aided detail.)


"Battle Rifle" is one of those odd and fluid words in the military vernacular. The most common current usage of the term is to diferentiate rifle-cartridge chambered selective fire weapons from intermediate-cartridge selective fire weapons. So, while the M-14 is a rechambered M1 Garand, the Army was more interested in the selective fire capability and the extra rounds to support it at the time. Duriong WWI, ALL infantry rifles were bolt-action, with the M1 being the first auto-loader to show up furing WWII. The Germans and Soviets both came up with auto-loaders before war's end, but the prototypes for full select-fire weapons like the protorype AK and the Sturmgewehr had already eclipsed them before it was all said and done. (The Brits notably stuck with the Lee Enfield bolt-action rifle.) It's mostly accademic these days though, because no army with a choice is going to take semi-automatic only weapons when at LEAST selective-fire is available. The distinction these days (and certainly by 2070) is going to have a lot more to do with the caridge scale (not performance) than anything else.

Generally, that's true. But with longer ranges becoming more common, it makes sense to upgrade to a cartridge which allows you to still lay down quantites of suppressive fire, carry plenty of rounds, shoot accurtate bursts, and deliver accurate aimed fire out to extended (800m) ranges. If you can do that with the same basic platform, that's a plus. I had heard that whole units (admittedly, small units) were being issued not just the old M-14s but the newer M-2 (same weapon with a polymer stock, usually, and some updated tooling), and not as just the accurized DMR models, but as a regular issue rifle for long range shooting which is much more common in Ashcanistan than Iraq, where the M4 carbine got so much play. It's not just about collateral damage, though - there's something to be said for having each and every one of your troops being able to return fire out to that kind of range. If for no other reason than purely psychological, because when you KNOW you can't "get out that far", being under fire is extremely demoralizing while you wait for support. Furthermore, it keeps the badguys honest by forcing them to act more circumspectly in regards to engaging allied forces. The 6.8 got great reviews in Iraq because you still got 30 rounds in the clip and the same basic shooting performance and felt recoil, but you got penetration comparable to the AK-47 or even 7.62x51 in closer. The 6.5 Grendel, on the other hand, is getting rave reviews just about everywhere, but especially Ashcanistan because it lets a conventional M-16 platform (with the upper replaced, a 3 minute job without specialized tools) get out to 800+ meters with almost the same terminal performance as a 7.62x51 but at the cost of only two rounds from the clip (28 vice 30). What puzzles me is just how TYPICALLY resistant the folks in procurement are being to the change(s). The fact that it's so historically repetitive doesn't excuse it in the least.