I'm looking for filtered for intentional, planned, and specifically targeted killings rather than say where the objective of the initiator is a mugging or making an arrest. Anecdotal observation of the news over the years suggests to me a serious dearth of 'snipers in the bushes' variety of murder. Especially for a specific target (rather than random targets of opportunity, like the serial killer in Washington DC a number of years back).

Note that I'm talking civilian here, not battlefield situations.

P.S. I know this messageboard also tends to have a higher than average number of law enforcement professionals, so even your anecdotal observations from your work would be appreciated.

That's gonna be really hard to find. Where's the researcher gonna get the data, and who's gonna make the judgement call that its a "intentional, planned, and specifically targeted killing"? I suppose if you just used data from murder 1 convictions, that would count, but even that could be a skewed sampling.

But yes, anecdotal and other evidence would seem to support the theory that murder by gun is a short range activity. If for no other reason than that long range leads to ATTEMPTED murder by gun, since most murderers are not trained marksmen, and because most killers (especially in premeditated crimes) know their victims socially, so can approach them.

Even filtered by organized crime (I know, still a broad topic). Yes, it would need to be a judgement call by the investigating officer but how many organized crime targets are completely unknown and unsuspected once a murder investigation is opened up? The sniper-from-one-mile-out is at cliche level in some Shadowrun games, in my experience rampantly endemic. But if this makes sense as a means of a 'hit' why isn't there more of it happening? Yeah, yeah, "ex-military guys hard up for cash". But there aren't those right now? What about in some of the places in the world where there are less stable governments? In Columbia, where very competent ex-military do sign up for mercenary work, is there a lot of distance hits/attempts going on?


EDIT: There is this: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/sp...5-SRsniper.html But that has the flaw that it relies on the reporting officer to check "sniper" rather than another mutually exclusive check like romance gone wrong or gangland killing (I'm trying to find the source of that footnote, it's out on the web somewhere). Also not that a solid majority of the tiny number of incidents they mention were commited with handguns.

Part of that problem with the 1 mile shot is finding the range. Accounting for windage and bullet drop, not to mention a moving target in those conditions, especially in a city, where you could quite likely have things moving through your LOS (such as pedestrians at a coffee shop) is going to seriously hamper that. I've seen a demonstration of the 1 mile shot by a top notch sniper team that took some serious work to get the range, and they were still off center by a little more than 6". The second shot, following shortly after, was almost dead on. The next five tore the center mass up.

Basically, a handgun at close range is just more practical. if you want to use a long rifle, you're better off going from the roof of KONG Wal-Mart and shooting a guy in the parking lot.

It's my understanding that a lot of SWAT-type "sniping" occurs at under 200 yards, and is frequently much closer than that, due to the fact that you can usually get decent cover and a good line of sight from close up in an urban situation, but the further out you get, the more crap is in the way.

From "Just 2 Seconds", pps 7-8:
71% use firearms; handguns more than twice as often as long guns in the US. Outside the US the reverse is true.
81% of attacks were within 25 ft in the US. Longest range attack in the US was 263 ft.
70% of attacks outside the outside the US were within 25 ft, despite the predominance of long guns.
64% of attacks occur when the target is at or inside the car, with a 77% success rate.

p86 DeBecker did not find a single successful handgun attack from outside 25 feet.
His conclusion was that attackers who fired from within 25 ft usually were successful and from outside 25 ft were never (or almost never - it's possible he missed one) unsuccessful. Hence at close range you have to stop the attacker from shooting.

It's a fascinating book if you are interested in the field.

Longer distance is a trade off of certainty for surprise. When it comes to premeditated murder, certainty is king.

Generally, the only time you're going to want to shoot at long range is if the bullet needs to travel to some place where you can not go yourself.

The golden test for a sniper is the 1,000 yard shot but yeah they usually hae a spotter allowing for wind and such.

I can't give ranges but just anecdotal examples of design.

Sykes, who trained the shooters for MI6 and the OSS in WW2 discovered when working as a policeman in the China that most gun fights happened at 4 feet as people stumbled on to each other. That would be about right for a shadowrun as you run into a guard in an office or warehouse or alley. for that pistols are needed.

When the Israeli's took the Golan heights from the Syrians they discovered how well the bullpup design of the Uzi worked in the close quarters of a bunker where the Syrian's AK's were too bulky.

Kalishnakov developed his famous autromatic rifle from his observations of the batltefields of WW2 where distance shots were less important than volume or reliability.

The other side of the coin is that the British and American militarys still focus on accuracy at shooting- one shot, one kill. This has come as a nasty surprise to muslim fighters who only know the west from TV and films and found themselves being cut down by accurate discaplined fire at long range.

In 1914 German soldiers facing British regulars who's rifle fire was so accurate and fast that they reported they were fighting massed machine guns. The same thing happed in 1918 when the regulars of the US Marines went into Belleau Wood- the marines were Regulars of a quality and mass unseen on the battlefields for 4 years and their quality was a nasty surprise to the Germans who had become use to the worn down quality of Britsh and French troops

In RL target shooting at: At 10 yards you can see your holes in the target and can correct aim. At 25 yards you can't see the impact of your shots on the target so you can't correct, each shot stands alone

That matches up with the last stats I saw from the FBI. They refer to it as the three threes of shootings.

Most shootings (in the US) take place at night and last 3 seconds, with 3 shots fired from 3 feet. Generally defensive shootings occur between 7 and 21 feet. The fun factoid is that an average guy with a knife that is within 21 feet will likely kill an average person before they can draw and fire.

So bringing a knife to a gunfight may not be such a bad idea after all?

When you require a minimum skill level of 4 Dice and accomplishment level of 3 Hits, you tend to have highly trained & capable special forces... especially when you have "good ol' country boys" as your snipers

I'm a fan of accuracy over firepower. Having the biggest baddest weapon on the field is meaningless if you cannot hit your target reliably. My Battletech designs over the years have always focused on being able to shoot regularly, reliably, and with great accuracy. Weapon power is a secondary or tertiary design concern. Made tournament play far more entertaining for me.

I've found that in the real world it's much the same. Weapon power is a secondary concern to being able to hit your target.

Yep, the typical human cannot react fast enough to someone within 21 feet. Keep in mind that metric assumes the knife wielder has it in hand and is attacking someone who has no weapon in hand.

I for one would not try to get my gun out to stop a knife wielding attacker who is within 7 yards (21 feet). I'd go for hand to hand (or grab something usable as an improvised club) or simply bug out. Can't hurt me if you can't get to me. While I may have weapons readily available to me, sometimes it's simply less problematic to resort to measures that don't involve using them.

Only if you have the knife in hand and are within 21 feet before the other guy decides he needs his gun. In that case, you aren't bringing a knife to a gunfight; you're bringing a knife to a fistfight, where the other guy happens to have a holstered gun.

IMO, readying a weapon should typically be a complex action. Its really not that easy to get your gun ready, especially if you've been attempting to conceal it. The current rules seem to be set up for folks who have their guns in combat holsters, wild west style.
Even if faster draws are realistic, rules wise it would go a long way to boost HtH combat, especially with weapons. Currently, most folks can't draw and use a HtH weapon, but they can draw and use a gun. Quickdraw tests would reduce drawing to a simple action, not a free action.

In the above-mentioned average gunfight (3ft range), it really doesn't matter whether you've got a gun or a knife, only that you're the first one to gather his wits.

Darthmord beat me to it. Only if you have the knife in hand or can pull it rapidly while moving.

My average draw from a concealed holster to shots on target is about 1.5 seconds. As a benchmark, I'm about average on draw speed. As long as you can cover 21 feet while drawing a knife in 1.5 seconds you're golden.

Generally speaking the average gunfight is short range, short time and surprisingly not lethal. Most folks shot with a pistol tend to survive with prompt medical attention. Humans are really hard to kill short of crashing the CPU or putting a lot of holes in the plumbing.

Nice topic. Sadly, I don't have my books with me. Anyway:

There's a test for law enforcement called Tueller drill that involves an attacker, armed with a knife, and the defender with a holstered handgun. It requires a lot of training to pass this test, but it's not impossible. Also, just because the attacker reaches you before you can engage him with your weapon doesn't mean you suffer such thing as an "instant kill". It's not that easy to kill someone with a knife quickly. So you might get cut/stabbed, but if you fight through, you have a very decent chance to put the attacker down.

That said, according to numerous statistics form the FBI or NYPD, most gunfights happen at a range of roughly 6 feet. The most distant shot fired was 62 yards, I think. Reason could be that most fights are the end of some sort of conversation ("Your clothes... give them to me, now. ") and talking over long distance pretty much sucks.

Also, a pistols can be better concealed and carried than a rifle. Reliable hits with a pistol over distances of 25m+ require training, which costs time and money. I suppose a mugger won't invest into his shooting skills when he already lacks the funding for his daily needs/ drug abuse.

ps: A bullpup configuration means that the magwell is behind the trigger. So an UZI is not a bullpup weapon.

Do also note that sniping in an urban landscape is a very different animal than sniping in a more rural landscape. When you have lots of tall buidlings, it creates wind channels - with winds going at different speeds in different directions.

Given the added 'expense' of having a long range weapons platform (and the skill to use it), with its relatively low chance of success, compared to a medium or short-range attack, the only real advantage I'd see to using it is it permits a quicker, cleaner getaway, when targeting a known target who will appear at a known location, and normally has some level of protection (such as bodyguards). Otherwise, I really can't see any reason to even consider it.

"Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller and popularized by the Street Survival Seminar and the seminal instructional video "Surviving Edged Weapons," the "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet."

What this means is the guy with the knife will get to attack a police officer with a holstered gun. It doesn't mean he won't get shot doing it, or that he will successfully stab him. It means that the likelihood is that the average guy with a knife will get at least one stab at the average defender with a holstered gun in an average police holster.

For a more extensive discussion, see Edged Weapon Defense: Is or was the 21-foot rule valid?.

That's why the officer carries different weapons. Example: we carry batons as well as OC spray, plus side arm (military police btw). You can wear your baton anywhere you want. I prefer to wear mine in front, in position for a cross body draw. When talking to a subject, you get used to standing in an interview stance (one foot further back, hands in front about at waist level, on my baton for example, your weapon side away from the subject). After a while you get used to standing that way. And a little jumpy about anyone standing too near your sidearm. The batons are expandable, so it's easy to draw out the 8 inch baton from the holder, and extend as needed. Very easy in less than a second.

You holster factors in to how you draw your weapon, mostly how many points of retention there are, and how practiced you are at drawing out. Not to mention thumbing the safety as you draw (although you're not generally" supposed" to do that, it's a given if "knife guy" is coming at you). So there's a lot that goes into it, especially practice.

One thing to take into account is the really long super shots people hear about have the benefit of specialized gear and spotters. Most random killers don't have access to top end rifles even in "free" societies due to cost and a spotter means an accomplice or another person who can talk. If you are doing this professionally you don't want specialized gear because it is another route to track you down. the cool assassin scenes in movies where they get specially calibrated super guns might exist on some level but most assassins don't work that way, and quite frankly don't get paid enough to do it. Most premeditated murderers don't have the hypothetical contacts that give them access to special high end equipment and wont be dropping $5000 on a really nice rifle. Also your local under the counter gun dealer that random murderer X can find probably has a fairly weak supply of hunting rifles.

Now in a game, I'm all for the cool scenes where you buy your bad ass sniper rifle for the shot from the next county.

On a side, side note unless it was an "accident" on a hunting trip rifles are a lot harder to pull off as anything but premeditated. Other weapons can be explained as acts of rage or accidents more easily. if you plan on accidenting someone a rifle is not a great choice unless you have a really clean rifle.

From the top of my head, a few examples of "criminal sniping" that I'm too lazy to search more precisely for :

- vor v zakone Vyacheslav "Yaponchik" Ivankov was shot last year with a Dragunov riffle fired from a van 70 meters away, and died a few days later.
- John Allen "Beltway Sniper" Muhammad in 2002, was firing from 50 to 100 meters most of the time.
- The shoots attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald were, IIRC, 50 to 80 meters. Any other positions surrounding Dealey Plaza would involve similar range (even closer for the infamous "Grassy Knoll")
- The PIRA South Armagh snipers were firing from 200 to 250 meters most of the time, and missed more than once. They used their .50 Barrett riffles a few times at much longer range.

That's the thing, I generally find it painfully boring. Especially with the relative ease that the SR rules tend to imply, perhaps I'm not piling on enough modifiers and such. But it isn't obvious from the text and I've found is met with cries of 'foul'. EDIT:Which is somewhat understandable given, like I said, how it is all worded.



For urban areas, especially in jurisdictions where C&C permits are widely and easily available that makes sense. But rural areas this doesn't necessarily hold true, I grew up where long guns on racks in the back window, in the back seat, or even in the middle of the front seat weren't uncommon (rural western Canada). Obviously the tables are completely turned on that in Canada where for the vast majority of people it a no-no to even transport a handgun in a vehicle outside a straight path between storage locations or to a gun range.

-- -- -- -- --

Thanks everyone for all the great posts.

Shooting unaware targets is slightly too easy, given that Vision Magnification completely negates all range penalties. Somebody with Agility 3 and Longarms 3 can snipe a distant target no huhu with vision mag.

WTF?

Front sight, front sight, front sight, and proper trigger squeeze.

True, I've been a city folk for too long I guess. My few years in gun rack territory doesn't track in my normal thought patterns.

Yes, yes it is. I would have preferred vision mag canceling 3 dice of penalties or something so long and extreme range were still tough shots.

It is what it is. He includes information on over 800 attempted and successful assassinations in the book. When he couldn't find a single successful handgun attack at over 25 feet it suggests that they are damn uncommon. While Gavin De Becker has some very odd ideas about the utility of guns for self-defense, he has built a successful executive protection firm and is a consultant for the Secret Service, the Federal courts, etc and ignoring what his research finds because it sounds wrong to you would be unwise. He's also includes some research his company as done about how long it takes to carry out and respond to certain types of attacks, and interesting detailed analysis of a few attacks.

Hmm, let me put it this way.

If someone who trains in the use of handguns less than I do (I usually participate in a sporting event that uses up 170-200 rounds once a month; apparently that's more practice than a lot of police officers do who in some cases just need to qualify every quarter or something) I wouldn't be surprised if the person failed to hit their target while under stress from outside of 25 feet because in my experience once you begin to feel stress your trigger squeeze is going to become jerky because you're trying to squeeze the shot off quickly and because you're experiencing stress. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if in most cases or even the vast majority of cases shots tended to be down and to the left.

With the amount that I currently do practice, sometimes I miss along the lines described above when firing at a small target 25 feet away or further, but depending on how good of a day I'm having, I like to think that when I focus on my trigger squeeze, form, proper aiming, etc, that I hit the target properly anywhere from 50% to 90% of the time, again depending on if I'm having a good day or a bad day. I also feel I'd do significantly better if I practiced more often. Now that's going after head-sized targets, so that would be closer to super Zen BOOM HEADSHOT mo-mo-monsterkill than just a typical shot to center mass.

So the reason that statistic seems weird to me is that even though I'd expect a lot of misses with handgun assaults at the same time just a little bit of practice should make for much much better statistics than "none of the time". I mean, 25 feet is pretty close.

Yeah, I always felt that SR would benefit from more penalties at long range, but also allowing for things like negation of some of those penalties for firing prone and supported, or for multiple take aim actions, etc.

Granted, there's a tradeoff between simplicity and realism, and I think SR4 combat is usually pretty close to the sweet spot there. I just think it makes vision mag too good, is all.

I noticed that Pheonix Command, besides for the fact that it handled suppression fire and compensating for bullet drop, resulted in a game that was actually really really similar to the older Rainbow Six games, like the ones where you planned out your whole raid in advance, up to the PC version of Rainbow Six 3, where they designed it so that gaming skills could only take you so far.

Basically Pheonix Command kept track of the time it took to change stance, ready a weapon, pivot 30 degrees, and so on. Very much like the early Rainbow Six where basically when all was said and done whomever was crouched and covering the area would pretty much pwn the person who tried to rush the area, unless the defender was affected by a flashbang or something. Phoenix Command had a little more detail in terms of physical action, in that you could fire from the hip for a penalty if you didn't have time to get into a shooting stance, but Rainbow Six 3 had a hell lot more detail in terms of equipment, i.e. your recoil characteristic would improve if you had a helical mag on your rifle because of the weight.

Maybe it is because the target's head does or might move? Or other things move in the way or try stop you? In no way am I belittling the skill required for shooting on the range, or how that practice can help someone in the field. But there is a lot less going on at the range, a lot more unknowns (and danger) to handle/filter in the field, right?

Also, although I've not picked up the book yet (and do I plan to), the "failure" category might include just injuring rather than killing the target? That implies you must kill on the first shot (so realistically you need to make that headshot, square on like into the "snot cage" from the front, to have a good percentage, right?) or be able to adjust for the dynamics of follow-up target movement/dropping, defenders acting, etc. to land more shots to finish the job.

EDIT: Another possibility. Certainty is King. So most thought out plans involve getting in close. Ergo you are seeing a much higher percentage of "Plan B" (attacker has been prematurely detected or isn't sure WTF is happening because something unexpected occured) and/or adhoc/poorly planned/unplanned situations when the attack is coming from outside 25 ft.



-- -- -- -- --

As for simplicity I would rather have SR error on the side of cranking up the long range default TN/Threshold, and handle lowering it via the sprinkling of exceptions. Setting aside "realism" for the moment, from a strictly gaming POV I find the easy long shot that much of a drama killer. So I think it actually misses the "sweet spot".

Raven Shield (Rainbow Six 3) was probably the crowning point of the series. I still enjoy playing it with my friend on Elite setting with max tangos, although you can pretty easily abuse it with the right setups. Aside from smoke + thermal scope on the integral silenced sniper rifle, you'd be amazed at the power a silenced Mac-10 with extra clips can do. For extra fun, try rescuing hostages with nothing but pump action shotguns (and flash, smoke, gas, etc). God I miss that game

Ok consider this a loose comparison, because I in no way am trying to imply that the two are exactly the same.

I used to play an unhealthy amount of paintball, back in the day. Even at my best I always laughed about the paint to kill ratio. I would spray an insane amount of paint across the field over the course of a game. I used to go in with tubes strapped all over me. I always said that "I never lost a game for lack of shooting back." I might go through 2-300 rounds and come out with only a kill or two. Most of the time, when range gets tight, people start diving for cover and doing everything they can to make themselves hard to hit. So yeah hitting, a person that does not want to be hit is a lot harder than many people think. And I had the advantage of knowing the paintballs were not going to kill me. Even if they did leave a few bruises now and then.

The advantage of deprecating long-range sniping PCs, is that it explains why they don't get sniped to death by NPCs on a regular basis too.

Having played a number of paintball games myself (both woodsball and speedball), there is a difference in paintball. You can Neo-Matrix the paintballs, I've done it often enough, especially over 10 feet. They slow down a LOT faster then ammo. Some baggie clothing does wonders for catching shots (I used to wear my flanel jacket, I think 1 in 5 broke). Also, what stops a paintball (thin wood, garbage cans, hell, twigs) will not stop real ammo. Paintball's fun but I don't think it can be used for an accuracy comparison, not from a statistical standpoint. Kill to shot ratios are just way too far off.

Yeah, with how relatively slow paintballs are it becomes real hard to draw a line between getting someone to miss and dodging. Maybe running around like a maniac won't get you out of the way of a well-aimed bullet, but it might get someone to take a bad shot to begin with. Wouldn't want to bet on it though.

Hmm, I guess if it were dark, and someone were sprinting and ducking, it would be relatively hard to BOOM HEADSHOT. The closest thing I come to that is shooting one of those spinning targets. Also your second point about plan B makes sense as well.