Seems logical to me...

Keep the Faith

Except when they don't.

I mean, shit guys, I'm a paramedic, and for every iron man I've seen there has been 2 or 3 complete wimps.


There's a difference between accurate assumptions and appropriate assumptions. It's appropriate for police officers to assume that the guy they are shooting could beat the crap out of Rambo and that the utmost caution is required-- you don't start shooting people because you think there's a less dangerous way out of the situation, after all. That's not the same as saying that all or even most perps won't go down to 2 or 3 shots. Whether someone continues fighting is a lot more case-by-case than that. That's why I'd rather see the existing rules modified to have situations in which people might give up the fight if they screw up a body+will test rather than have binary knockdown rules.

so who here has actual experience shooting critters in the 100-300lb range?

Elk, moose, black bear (with a Bow), even a mountain lion. What would you like to know?

The first three are all heavier than 300 lbs. though.

Problem is wild animals tend to want to stay away from humans. Mountain lions though...they seem to think that we are pretty tasty on occassion.

The issue here seems to be that the RAW creates a more Hollywoodesque feel to knockdown, when some people would prefer a more realistic mechanic that incorporates the psychosomatic response. Perhaps I can give a start to a solution (needs tweaking);

Knockdown: Use half the attack's base DV vs BOD, with a REF check to increase effective BOD if necessary.

Feinting: If a character takes more damage in one attack than their WIL, they are rendered unconscious until they can succeed on a WIL (1) roll, which can be made up to once per IP.




Using wild animals is slightly misleading, as they have a fight/flight response to almost everything, while many humans have a fight/flight/surrender response to other humans.

I've shot quite a few big deer in my time and the responses vary. Usually they go down really fast if the shot was good, otherwise they keep running. Granted we're talking about a heftier firearm as well.

and how many humans have you shot?

How many 150 pound deer/elk go down to one 9mm round?

I'm not sure as I have never heard of anyone (including me) used a 9mm as a hunting round. I have heard some decent results for 45 acp however; hopefully this year I can find a SMLE for a decent price to convert to 45 acp to try on whitetail this year. So I don't know but I'd like to find out at least for 45.

For small game the .45 ACP is acceptable, however it isn't great against animals much over 100 pounds, and few animals over 200 pounds will even be phased by it. The 9mm is slightly better at getting a fatal strike on 100+ pound animals, but it's almost guaranteed that you will be tracking it before it actually ends up dying.

small game with 45 acp? what are you calling small game feral pigs? Coon and under are too small for that as far as I'm concerned.

Small game is under 200 pounds. Coon and the like are varmint.

Evidence (anecdotal or empirical) being what it is, you only need to have shot one... at which point you will have expereince to draw upon...

As for Animals at 150 lbs and up? Many... they vary... you can even hit two identical animals in the same place, with the same damage, and they will often act completely differently... Sometimes they will drop like they have been poleaxed, and other times they will run 200-300 yards and then drop, and sometimes they will attack the shooter (Wild Pigs, Bear, Various Large Cats, etc)...

Keep the Faith

On a base that I will not name, here in the United States, I can attest that a deer will drop from a Colt .45 ACP round (nothing fancy, just standard military issue; fortunately I do not remember the names of the individual parties involved)... happened twice, and the distance was between 25-30 Meters each time...

Keep the Faith

I've heard of guys who killed an attacking grizzly with a 9mm glock, a 10mm glock, a .357 revolver etc. NOT recommended and not 100% successful, but it has worked for some people.

Depends on how long that 9mm round is

Yeah, .350 Remington Magnum will take down most deer. And most grizzlies, polar bears, tigers and lions.

Well, I was thinking of the 9.3mm Bennecke...just in case one of those grizzlies happens to be a shapeshifter

I'll agree with that. I really stated my question rhetorically in the hopes of any without experience on a topic to not argue about something they know little to nothing of. A pet peev of mine I developed from hearing too many people talk, as an authority, on firearms who own and have barely fired any firearms. Or do the same for gunsmithing when they have not changed oil in their vehicle much less repaired a firearm.

and now I'm going off topic, sry...

Hey, No Problems...

Keep the Faith

Personally, I think it'd be a real mistake to push people out of the conversation just because they haven't actually shot anything to death before. Being able to perform an action doesn't necessarily mean you understand the mechanics of it, after all. Further, anecdotal experiences tend to be wildly contradictory-- despite all of the killing that has happened throughout human history, trauma and the will to live continues to surprise even the most experienced doctors, yet at the same time every year people break their necks by being careless when they go to sit down in a chair. Besides, people tend to defend their views past the point of absurdity even when they don't have a personal stake like "What, you expect me not to believe my own eyes?" entering into things.

Very true... and very well put...

Keep the Faith

Every where that I have hunted had a minimum foot lbs. energy rating for allowed calibers. The 9mm Para, to my knowledge does NOT meet that requirement, nor does the .45 ACP, even the 5.56mm NATO does not meet that minimum requirement for deer.

Caliber that I used to take big game with, 7mm Rem Magnum, excellent energy, good ballistic coefficient with a boat tail bullet, flat trajectory, and not so much kick that it would knock my fillings out when I shot it.

Whitetail deer and antelope, I would shoot a .270 Winchester which is more than ample enough cartridge to take them.

I think that the real problem with hunting analogies comes down to the fact that the animals are NOT shooting back. That changes everything to my mind.


Do I believe that a single 9mm round will kill a person?
There are so many variables to that I don't really believe it can be answered definitively.

Distance, the greater the distance the more it favors the better trained individual (FBI say 10' is average, PMA study says 20').
Hit ratio, one study has come back and suggested that the hit ratio is closer to 68%.
First solid hit, he who lands it statistically is going to come out the winner.

Working as an EMT, I can attest from experience that people can survive multiple close range buckshot blasts, and they can die from a .22 in the abdomen. There's no magic caliber, no reliable killing performance... you can only swerve the odds in your favor when you aim more accurately, pick a larger caliber, or switch to an interesting ammunition type.

With that in mind, there's three ways to stop someone that occur to me.
1) CNS hits, while there's exceptions, are generally grossly disabling.
2) Hemorrhagic shock and loss of brain perfusion make it impossible to function. Getting someone into that state doesn't always happen quickly.
3) Structural hits that ruin the machinery of motion (a round breaking the hip, for example) will stop someone from moving. If that was the definition of "stop" you were looking for, it's a good and fast one.

The training I've had on tactical shooting gives three primary target areas: the brain, the upper chest, and the pelvis. The brain's reasoning is obvious, the upper chest gives you all of the vasculature off the top of the heart, the lungs and airway and the thoracic spine, and the pelvis gives you the hip and the iliac arteries. Pick a target area, double tap, pick another, double tap, repeat as necessary. Rather than relying on a particular mechanism of injury or a particular location (which might be armored or some other bizarre thing), spread the love around and give yourself the best chance you can.

Of course, the whole failure drill thing makes the big assumption that you hit with the first few bullets. The most common cause of bullets failing to stop someone is that you missed. As Pat Rogers once told me, "Missing faster doesn't help."

Contradictory anecdotal experiences are not in conflict with the claim that "torso hit won't reliably and immediatedly incapacitate" though.

The point in this discussion isn't whether they die or not - it is how fast they get incapacitated. A good shot to the heart is 100% fatal - but you can'tassume that the'll drop instantly, he could have 10-15 seconds of fight left in him. (Not saying you disagree with this, just pointing out that survival isn't the issue.)

We really don't care about that, though. SR4 already has wound mods. We (at some point) were talking about temporary knockdown. Although, originally it was about sniper rifles, so much for that.

Here is my take on the whole 10-15 seconds of life left after a sniper rifle hit to the torso...

If I am 1000 meters away and hit a troll in the chest with a round that is going to kill him in 10-15 seconds...do I really give a sh!t that he isn't going to drop immediately?
No, because he isn't going to be able to get to me in 10-15 seconds.

Sure, but we're talking about knockdown at close range.

Er, not 'how is best to cause knockdown', but 'does SR4 knockdown make sense/is it balanced/is it realistic/does it need tweaking/etc.'.

Claymore mine...because you didn't specify that the user had to survive.

In RL I would opt for a 12 guage shotgun loaded w/ 00 buckshot, open choke. Even if they survive, are they going to keep coming towards you after the first hit.

In SR...I would go with a Ingram Smartgun X, 3-shot burst, EX-Explosive rounds...because it is classic SR.

Here's the problem. Sometimes, even in real life, they DO.


-karma

Very curious why you'd go for an open choke; you're (potentially, depending on other factors) reducing the number of net hits for a greater hit probability that only really breaks even at long ranges. Granted, this isn't such a debilitating factor for 00 buck, but still - wide shotgun spread isn't the hit guarantee that the entertainment media makes it out to be.

Re: battle rifles, my dad toted an FN FAL for his stint in the reserves back in the late 60's and loved it but for the goddamn recoil from the thing, even with it being semi auto. Great rifle, as long as you could get a grip on the recoil. 20 years after he was firing that I saw him firing a 416 rigby and he thought it was tame compared to the SLR (as an aside, the bloke that lent my dad the rigby was a game guide up in the northern territory for water buffalo, he carried the rigby for >100 metres and a 12 gauge with buckshot for the oh crap moments)

But you wouldn't want to use that in cqb because its just to unwieldy being 39" to 42" long.

If any of you yanks are ever in sydney, go over the mountains to the lithgow small arms factory museum and look over their collection of rifles, it's a massive collection and a big eye opener.

Karmainferno,
Facing an armed intruder in my house, I am more than content to let them run away if they want to and racking a round into a 12 guage shotgun would give most people pause. If that doesn't work and they are determined to try and kill me or my family well, a shotgun at close range (15') is pretty lethal.

Earlydawn,
At such close distances (again inside a house so 15' is a good averge) the open choke is going to open up the pattern by about 30-40% which is about a dinner plate. With a center mass hit, you have the chance of penetration through the heart, both lungs, windpipe, the major arteries and veins. The average 2 3/4" shell will hold about nine 00 buckshot, which is about a .33 caliber round, so nine chances to hit something important at 15' with a single pull of the trigger. With that said, in such an instance, I would grab the shotgun and the wife would call 911. I would not leave the master bedroom to engage the intruder and would be more than happy to wait for the police to arrive while I hold a defensive position.

You sound like a very sensible man. This attitude would probably save a lot more lives (victims as well as perpetrators) than the usual "you trespass and you die" attitude I've heard about.

I would rock a 12-gauge semi-auto using #4 buckshot and a duckbill choke. Nothing like a pair of 26-pellet ovals of pain at waist level from the end of the hallway so make sure that anyone crouched or somehow trying to do some jumpy crap still gets some of the lovin' you're dishing out. Worked great in 'Nam, fail to see why it would do any worse 100 years later...

I am not going to argue against #4 buckshot, shoot what you have faith in. As far as the buckbill choke and realizing that within the relatively short distances inside a house you aren't going to see massive pattern spread.

If a person wants the most energy from a hit, then my choice of 00 buckshot is actually inferior to #1 buckshot. You go from a .33 caliber to a .30 but increase the number of pellets in the shell by about 74%.

I would seriously add this proviso...in RL you have to think very seriously what is going to happen if you miss. In an apartment building I would be very hesitant to use any sort of firearm! An aluminum baseball bat would be my first choice for an apartment. Same with the suburbs, if pushed I would lean toward a .12 guage with birdshot. I live outside of town, with one neighbor, 300' away so 00 buckshot isn't a huge concern.

I also have concealed security cameras, an alarm system, motion detection lighting, two dogs, heavy steel entry doors with steel frames (included deadbolt + mortisse lock, no windows in or around the doors)...so I think that I am more than safe. Well, a zombie horde would probably get me at some point.

I'd suggest focusing on not missing instead. If you are dealing with a person (or persons) who will continue to attack someone who has a shotgun they will almost certainly be willing to go a few rounds with a guy with a baseball bat. If you are really worried try birdshot. At close range birdshot will go through both sides of a drywall wall, but it's unlikely to get through the next one. Birdshot isn't exactly the ideal round to stop people with, but it's better then wrestling with two meth addicts.

Ok im changing "sensible" to "paranoid" here... yikes.

That should have been your first assessment.

I while my comment on holding a signal room depends heavily on layout I might move out of the room and fall back to it if needed.

I tend to think that I am prudent having worked in law enforcement, security and as a Private Investigator...bad things happen to good people all the time. The one thing that I heard over and over again from the victims, "I never thought something like this would happen to me."

I don't think that I am at any more risk than any other person. I don't lose sleep over 'what if' scenarios. I will be perfectly content to never have to fire a weapon in anger. I also know what the average response time is for law enforcment in the county where I live. I know that criminals don't like to be illuminated. Nor do criminals like doors that can't be kicked in, and that while a door knob and dead bolt can be bypassed simply enough that the mortisse lock requires repeated heavy blows to defeat. Add to that an alarm blarring and dogs barking...it would have to be a very deranged fellow to stick around.

I added a smiley face for the zombie's comment to show that I was joking about it.

To sum it up nicely, I travel and my wife is home alone for lengthy periods of time her safety is imperative to me.

Ok, you sell a little something-something, a little candy, am I right? Come on, you can tell us.

Just kidding -- keep the wife safe, that's the #1 priority.

I take the lazy man route to security and home ownership. I just keep entrances locked and the lines of sight clear with minimal landscaping and I keep things well lit. After all, one of the biggest errors people make is mistaking privacy for security. A privacy fence will keep someone out of your property for the few seconds it takes a fit man to clear your fence and after that it just provides cover. You know, so they can check out your back doors without any pesky neighbors giving them a hard time. Burglars know this.

Talking about my security measures wasn't meant to be an advocacy for others to follow suit. I wanted to convey that my idea of security is more about deterence (i.e. potential reward vs. hassle) than violent defense. I have found that some people that don't own firearms think that everyone who does is some trigger happy redneck just itching for the chance to start blasting away. Hopefully, the vast majority of firearm owners out there are responsible and of a similar mind.

Personally, I think that the biggest mistake an individual can make is to buy a pistol have the sale person show them how to operate it and think that they are protected when they get home. That individual is more a menace to themselves than an intruder. If you think that I am wrong about this, go play paintball with a bunch of first time players. I have been shot in the back (at close range) by players on my own team simply because they don't keep their finger off the trigger while they are walking behind me...more than once.

But...having derailed this topic horribly!

Even if the rules will allow for something...if it violates fundamental common sense and doesn't make the game more enjoyable...don't do it.

Vaguely related: my father shot a grizzly bear one day on a hunt. Fired on it at 175 yards, from the side, aiming to put his .338 Win Mag in past the shoulder. It turned and charged him. He ran the mag dry, loaded straight to the chamber for his sixth and seventh rounds, and it finally dropped at about 50 yards.

Being a surgeon by trade, he did an autopsy while they were taking the skin and meat. He found that his first round had, in fact, killed it... it expanded well, destroyed the ascending aorta, and shredded the top of both lungs. The other rounds he fired all hit, and might have slowed it down, but none would have been "immediately" fatal the way the first one was.