i am not an avid player of SR4 as of yet, only this last monday having sat in on a v4 game. i do have various incarnations of SR all the way back to the original printing.. unmodded first release. yeah yeah, big deal. i know. so while i have been around SR for decades, my applied knowledge base isn't vast. being that i am new to the boards, i havent yet sifted through all the posts wherein this question might have been answered any number of years ago.


i have a REAL problem with the infamous Ingram Smartgun and it's off-the-shelf GV2 and SndSpr. without having stated the GV2 is an equavilancy of some pure gunsmithing ingenuity that doesnt require directional muzzle venting; how can it possibly function in tangent with a suppressor, which -by sheer purpose- traps... redirects... more or less absorbs the expanding gasses propelling the projectile thereby reducing/nigh eliminating muzzle report???

GV is mounted before the suppressor? okay great.. you now have a completely useless suppressor.

GV is mounted at the suppressors tip? that leaves you without sufficient expanding gas to counter any burstfire recoil with venting.

! OR !
am i to understand, given the suppressor is removable, you have the option of one tactical benefit or the other from an off-the-shelf model... having the suppressor attached for the stealthy approach or having it removed for the balls-to-the-wall firefights?

oh ye of knowledge, enlighten this confused guntrog

This has been argued quite a bit on the forum. In short: Some folks (like me) don't care much and let it go. Others say you can only use one or the other at a time. Others have set fire to their SR4 book.

If you're looking for a gun realism debate, you came to the right place. You can either chalk it up to advanced 2070 technologies or limit it. Being able to use only one at a time is a decent idea. My group just lets it work as written.

well... after carefully rereading the whole line of description text for the Ingram Smartgun i find that it does NOT state the suppressor is integral. having now succeeded in my Common Sense Perception test i understand the Ingram to present the owner with tactical options of either stealth or burstfire accuracy by simply removing or attaching the suppressor.

now i DO see the Ingram as a handy compact Spray n' Slay.

of course i will happily knuckle slap anyone who thinks they have a keen little retro mod'd piece of killgear that sports an integral suppressor and GVs.

haha too true, Azralon, but my specific question is pretty much resolved. had i spent just a few more moments reading about the damned weapon i wouldnt have had the urge to post at all. i'm glad i did post, however. granted i solved my own dilemna, hopefully this string may solve said same problem other people might have had. viola, i have achieved forum purpose.

of course i havent really experienced forum posting until i get flamed by half a dozen or so people.... so i still have that to look forward to.

i suppose this isnt the time to bring up a further annoyance... the design of the Ares Alpha and how it cant possibly possess anything other than a single shot breachload GL. (other than the face value design of the weapon, i rather like it.)

hmm.. i suppose the clip could be mounted on the side of the weapon the design doesnt present to you.

or is it simply the design fails to present itself with the GL clip inserted?

right.. right.. i am breaking from my own string... too nit-picky. i'ma ST*U about the Alpha for now.

check the smiley, it was a joke...

Just because something is a joke doesn't meant it can't not make sense.

Why do you think you can have recoil compensation or supressor on the ingram, but not both ?

(somehow I sond like Eliza )

Recently a player in game used a submachine gun with silencer.
When the GM stated that the guards heard the attack he was very argumentative.
It took a few minutes to explain that even with a silenced gun "explosive ammo" still makes noise.
Ahh realism.

Actually, someone pointed out in one thread or the other, that explosive rounds in SR are solid slugs which just fragment on impact, so no more noise than regular ammo.

I thought, they were more like the robocop type of explosive rounds, which exploded .


Edit: I did read your initial post, and I don't see it .

mmmkay, Blume.... grrr forcing me to quote myself... EBIL!!!

I see where the problem is .

I am quoting rules, you are (possibly) quoting reality .

i am (exactly) quoting reality.

i was kinda hoping there might have been errata out there someone would have posted me privvy to. all i did was expose myself to an acceptable houserule, it seems.

Yeah, that's the one. And after rereading the corresponding rule, i think i have a limited attention span, since the rule states the round fragments and explodes.

So, i never have said anything about this...

what?! your EX rounds actually explode as well as fragment?..

dammit.. that's the last time i buy my barrel food from Uncle Flugbuzzits.

No, they fragment and explode (which is probably a bit wierd).

Again, i am quoting rules, not reality .

Um, "fragment and explode" is the same as "explode as well as fragment."

I'm having trouble imagining anything solid that manages to explode without fragmenting.

soooo... then fragnades fragment then explode as well?

Generally speaking, grenades explode. It's how they launch those razor sharp fragments into the air.

Easy. Plastic explosives. They explode without fragmenting. They just explode. It all turns to fiery death. It has to be covered in nails or metal or something to also fragment.
Most explosives explode without fragmenting. Most explosive devices also fragment.

Yeah, I think we can assume "fragment and explode" isn't meant to say the projectiles first fragment and then explode, but just that they both fragment and explode, in whatever order, when they hit something.

@Azralon: HA!

did i not previously state i would try to be more ignorant?

EX ammo is completely a matter of somantics. explosively fragment would have been acceptable.

Exploding and fragmenting would be logical.

Fragmenting and exploding: do the fragments explode or what ?

Example: Cluster bombs.

They 'fragment', then they explode. A simple bomb explodes and fragments.

Butterblume: "and" != "then."

Didn't i allready admit that i was wrong? .

I really think 'and' sometimes implicate a temporal reference, but that might be just my english .

no no after rereading it, it looked to me as though you were simply pointing out another example of somantics.

Normally I don't play the language barrier card, but i have no idea what somantics is ...

It's a typo.

Yeah, it can imply temporal relations, but doesn't always.

Probably a good idea to go back on topic at this point ... is there any way that gas vents and supressors could work together, or is that BS?

"By the very definitions of the two pieces of equipment, their effects are mutually exclusive."

Ie. BS.

Except for one gun, for which it works perfectly well for some unexplained but legal-within-the-rules reason.

No, no one has a source. Because you can't do it. You can't do it because the two effects are mutually exclusive.

Well, i asked for a source that states that this is not possible ...