What damage code do you think would be appropriate for flintlock pistols and rifles?

Humm. The most powerful muzzleloading rifles might well do 7S or even 9S, since at short/medium ranges they seem to be capable of the same velocities at same bullet weights as mid-caliber rifles (comparisons to .30-06 were common in my short Google-excursion). The ranges for those should be between the SMG and AR ranges.

Pistols I couldn't find a good source on. The few figures suggested performance between what might be considered Light and Heavy Pistols, so maybe 6M? Will vary a lot depending on ammo type, loading, etc.

I thought as much, which is why I also invested a few valuable minutes reading articles such as this, which suggest that the performance of blackpowder weapons has not significantly improved IRL. If the last 100 years hasn't seen significant improvement, I doubt the next 60 will either.

Applying my lack of any real knowledge on the subject outside of speculation to pose a couple of questions:

Shouldnt you be able to vary the power of the shot depending on how much powder you use? Would black powder rifles/pistols fare comparably well to their modern fellows against modern body armor?

The power would not even be close to on par with our present guns. I'd tend to say something like 4S or even 4M. It should not be more powerful than say a bayonet or a sword, and it's very unusual for someone to die within a few seconds of getting shot (unlike our present pistols). Usually cause of death would be infection or shock. Also keep in mind that most of the casualties from these weapons weren't wearing armor. The ranges would be piss poor. Medium range would be maybe maybe 20, I'd guess, with a musket, 10 or 15 with a pistol. Rifles would only do slightly better (better still with machined bullets and barrels). I'm not a ballistics person in any way, but I do read more than my fair share of history, and usually the only way they made effective use of muskets in the revolutionary war was by having a whole lot of them, and that was just until they could close the distance enough to use real weapons like swords.

The ranges of a musket would be crap. On par with a hold-out pistol, maybe even. Musketeers fired their weapons in large group volleys, on the principle that enough lead going in one direction would hit something. They weren't even told to aim, as that was impractical at the ranges used.

Besides, it would also depend on the type of shot you are using, I have a friend that has a muzzle loader. He has used round and slug shaped shot, round shot is some what like a hollow point round in that it has a lot of surface area, but not vary accurate past a certain range. The normal slug form is far more accurate the the round shot, and has the usual effectiveness of a normal slug, except for the lower velocities. I say round shot would have a effective range of a light pistol while the normal slug form would either have an effective range of a heavy pistol or SMG.

As others have stated, the real problem with many of these weapons was infection. Today's weapons fire rounds at a high enough velocity that they are effectively sterile when entering a human body. Guns from the American Civil War and prior to it did not have such high velocities, and often dragged foreign material (ie clothing) in when hitting someone. This lead to a much higher rate of infection. Of course, with modern medicine, this is less of a concern. Of course, modern black powder rifles are a little better and can produce higher velocities.

As for ranges, it depends on what you are talking about. American revolutionary War muskets had an effective range of maybe 100yds. By the American Civil War, the rifles being used had a range of more like 300yds, and were reasonably accurate.

As for damage, I'd say maybe a 6-7M. These guns could easily do as much damage to someone as being hit with a modern rifle at close range (musket balls weren't exactly small). Maybe a little higher dmg code for later madel rifles. Regardless, because of their generally lower velocity, I would allow probably let whoever is being shot take thier armor rating and multiply it by 1.5 to reflect the fact that it will be more effefctive at stopping a ball than a bullet (or at least it seems like it should).

At this point, it would be nice to know whether Reaver wants to implement actual 19th (or earlier) century weaponry, with authentic parts, firing authentic ammunition, or just authentic weapons used in a modern setting.

For example, if the limitation really is authentic ammunition, then penetration will be really poor against any form of body armor, because you are limited to slow, large-caliber expanding bullets. On the other hand, in such a setting penetration will be a non-issue, since there won't be any body armor either. Right?

And I'm with Req about the infections.

Then something like 4M and 5S might indeed be more reasonable. I won't comment on what the ranges on renaissance era firearms might be, because I haven't got a clue.

Glad to help. I'm grateful for every excuse to Google up some firearms-related stuff.

ok, here's the way it works. A bullet fired from a modern gun reaches temperatures between 200-300C without too much trouble. This is hot enough to effectively sterilize the bullet (boiling water @ 100C will do a fairly nice job of sterilizing something for you, like said water). Additionally, modern ammo is less likely to drag in foreign objects (like clothing). Because of this, you can treat a wound from a modern rifle as damn near sterile (they'll probably still want to make sure it's clean, but they probably won't be pulling peices of clothe out of you). Of course, this is for todays high velocity rifles (>2000fps). The muskets and rifles of old fired at a much lower velocity (~1000fps at best). This means that the round is less likely to be sterilized when being fired, and more importantly, was MUCH more likely to contaminate the wound with foreign material.

reaver, why do i not want to game all of a sudden?

-=shudders=-

Attaining a temperature of 300C will kill any bacteria on the surface of the bullet. They will simply burn off, like sticking a wire loop into a bunsen burner flame. Autoclaving is not an appropriate analogy, because it has different considerations.

Game terms IMO. Treat as gel rounds, cept then do physical damage.

Then be sure to give that knockdown bonus of gel rounds to shotguns firing slugs as well, and to any large-caliber rifles firing expanding ammunition.

Although useless for Reaver: Do gel rounds go against Impact or Ballistic? I could find reference in the Ammo section on p. 118 of SR3. For these rounds, it should certainly be Ballistic.

I used to hunt with a black powder rifle. It was a civil war replica, not a 'modern muzzle loader. It could shoot anywhere from 80 to 120 grains of black powder, shooting .50 caliber (half an inch wide, mind you) balls. Shooting one, I read as much as I could about em, and this is what I know (as probably could be found in any black powder sporting magazine)... Often times, a .50 or .54 caliber black powder rifle would be used for elephant hunting at the turn of the century or so, and it would work. Thats a lot of power, to take down an elephant. These elephant rifles did use more grains than a standard rifle, but a half inch wide soft lead ball travelling at that speed would leave a good sized hole, and the expansion of the bullet when it hits will tear something up. Makes quite an exit wound on a watermelon, I can tell you that from experience. Some civil war soldiers/woodsmen could shoot acurately at ranges up to a 1000 yards, but much speed would be lost by then, and they had to aim high above the target to hit it. Some power and damage of a modern day blackpowder rifle may be increased, as some can even shoot rifled bullets. Other effects might be a cover modifier if used in sr;even modern black powder makes quite a bit of smoke. As far as rate of fire, a GOOD shooter could shoot 3 rounds per minute, so you're looking at some time to load ( a few rounds at least)

Just as a side note the Street Sweeper as presented in the CC gives you the cost of powder "cubes" one might use for such purposes. Given that it's performance should be similar to that of a black powder shot gun one might use similar rules for muskets.

Where's Raygun when you need him?

That's dumb.

Why?

Some data:

a) There is a difference between rifles (with grooves/lands in the barrel, imparting spin stabilisation on the bullet) and muskets (smoothbore, no spin)

British Rifleman of the Napoleonic area firing the rather low powered Baker rifle (Think Sharps Shooters here) could reliably hit targets out to 200m. Some hunting rifles had longer ranges.

Muskets where a compromise between the complicated loading of a rifled muzzle loader (That involved the use of a mallet as well as regular cleaning and/or use of greased patches[US hunters]) and range. Add the difficulties in drilling the grooves and the rather low standing times before the weapon was "shot out" and massed musket fire from the rather cheaply available soldiers was a nice idea for those who didn't have to stand in line.

b) There is a difference between an 1815 muzzleloader (say Brown Bess or the above Baker) and a 1865 muzzleloader (say Civil war era guns). The latter are rifled (even the "Muskets") firing the Miniee bullet (ovoid bullet that allowed fast loading of rifled muzzelloaders and expandes into the grooves on firing. French development) That the civil war/crimean war/US-Mexican war saw quite a few of the "classic" line attacks has to do with military inertia[1] and the rather low visibility on blackpowder battlefields as well as the rather low training of quite a few troops.

c) After the US civil war, the standard service rifle (Springfield Pattern 1858 IIRC) was converted to a metall cartridge firing weapon that served the US Army until the time of the Cuban War - The "Trapdoor Springfield" first in .50 than in .45-70

d) All weapons until the introduction of the French Lebel 8mm (around 1880) where firing black powder since our modern nitro powder was developed by the french for that rifle!

e) The following famous weapons are using blackpowder without a cartridge/a paper cartridge (that just eases loading)

Colt Navy
Colt Walker
Colt Dragoon
All Sharps rifles before IIRC 1865
Hall Carabine (US Army)

f) Dead

Even as late as WWII the big mankillers where infections and bleeding to death. High speed, ovoid/pointed nose bullets are actually better at wounding than at killing (Kill one = 2man, 1 hour, wound one= 4-6 man multiple days)

Within their letal range muzzell


Conclusion:

A rifled muzzelloader is effective out to 200m

A blackpowder weapon has a one shot kill capacity if rifled as prooven in various wars

The damage capacity is not much lower than with modern firearms but ranges are shorter, ammunition is heavier (IIRC around 9-10mm is the smallest effective bore size for a blackpowder rifle while even first generation nitro-powder weapons achived the same damage and better ranges at 7.5-8mm)

I'd say give them a hunting rifles damage (6S-7S), low rate of fire (1-2 rnd/minute for elite units like 92/95[2] Foot) and short range (say 150m) for early 19th century rifled weapons.

Give Muskets a lower damage[3] (5M-7M), low rate of fire (3-4 rnd/minute) and a short range (say 25m)

Michael


[1] Ask Custer about Gaitlings....
[2] Only one of the two really existed, the other is Cornwells "Fictional Twin" for his brilliant "Sharps" series (The novels!)
[3] Unlike rifles with their tight fit muskets loose energy from the loose fit of the bullet

The biggest change will be reloading time, as was already mentioned. Muskets are pretty quick to load compared to rifles. I believe at Williamsburg they said an unskilled person could load a musket in under 15 seconds, a skilled person in under 7. Rifles take significantly longer (go with the number mentioned earlier). Either way, I'd make a quickness or muskets/rifles test every time I reloaded and divide 15 by the number of successes.

I just coulda sworn at a visit to Shiloh National Battlefield they said a 1000 yards... I know it wasn't 100, I could shoot accurately at 100 and have no skill, I see no reason why someone who shot his dinner everday with one couldn't be that accurate;also note this was for showing off purposes only, at that range, there was not nough power to do much of anything.

Well it really depended on the type of black powder weapon, an unrifled brown bess that was a common british weapon, had virtually a 10 meter accuracy range because it was smooth bore with no rifling. Remember the saying, "Do not fire until you see the whites of their eyes?" they said this because they couldnt hit anything til you saw the whites of the eyes. As the Kentucky long rifle had an effective range of 300 meters, because it was rifled. As for pistols, I once saw a man stand 10 feet from a sheet on a string, shoot at it, and miss so that will tell you bout that. As for killing power, a round ball from a flint lock musket does not even come close to the killing power of a modern AR round, hope this helps.

give pistols 6M, muskets 6S, and add a +1 or +2 modifier to the firing TNs. 6M and 6S don't sound like much--but then, nobody has armor that's effective.

I have a question... Why would you Want to use a Muzzleloader? What are your role-playing reasons? I cant seem to figure it out...

Oh, and growing up me Da and I used to shoot and Hunt with Muzzleloaders. All the low range statements for smoothbores are pretty accurate, low range. But during Rev and Civil Wars, Sharpshooter Divisions armed with Rifled, Flint and Cap-Lock Rifles, were known to be effective as far out as 300 yards, so bear that in mind. As far as damage goes, you can fell a 6" tree, at 20 yards with a 45 caliber Muzzleloader and 100 grains, the blowout damage is so severe. But, ANY Ballistic armour would bring down the damage greatly, IMHO...