Well, their main disadvantage, their bulk and extra weight, isn't particularly modeled well in Shadowrun.




-k

Bulk and weight are not much of an issue where you aren't carrying the weapon all day or are limited by resupply. Just remember most people don't fight to the death so a light calibre round is just as likely to remove a person from battle as a large calibre round. The real difference is the penetration value for targets such as vehicles and buildings.

Well, when you have ready resupply and are close to home base, of course you can afford to carry the bigger heavier rifle with the bigger heavier ammunition.

Which is partly why you're seeing a resurgence of them in current militaries.

But in wars where you spend days if not weeks in extended patrols far from backup, a lighter weapon with lighter ammo might be a nice thing to have. Which is one of the reasons weapons like the M16 were developed, because that is the kind of war they were fighting.

I'm just saying that the disadvantages that a heavier larger weapon impose aren't modeled well at all in the Shadowrun ruleset, so of course given this, a battle rifle is by the numbers inherently superior to an assault rifle.



-k

Well they do model a higher recoil modifier.

Modern militaries are tending to diverge their weapons into Battle Rifles and Carbines rather than assault rifles. The Battle rifle is to give increased penetration and range for marksmen, while the carbine are being used in more confined spaces such as cities where the range is less needed. IE the M-4 vs. the M-16 for weapons.

Some issues such as fighting in jungles or heavily wooded areas or in close quarters would need to be situational modifiers set by the GM especially for long barreled weapons.

I've actually used both an M-14 and M-16, both of which were capable of SA, BF, and FA firing profiles. The M-14 was considerable harder to keep on target (higher Recoil), unless you clipped the shoulder strap lengthened it fully and stepped on the end.

The M-14 fires the same round ans the M-60, 7.62mm x 54 grain, great for long range but hell'a hard to keep high volume fire on target. We were taught only to use the FA selection for suppression fire, force the enemy to take cover, usually while leap-frogging in retreat.

Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvSgBU3GfhI...feature=related

The M-16A2 and other later variants does not have a FA mode. Even the burst fire mode is rarely used. In the Marines you got your ass reamed if you ever used it on the firing range unless specifically told otherwise (such as during ENDEX parties where they had to burn off the rest of their allotted training ammo).

The C-7s and C-8s of the Canadian Armed Forces, however, do have Full Auto.

It's an issue of "Fire Discipline". IIRC, it was because the Vietnam War (Sorry, "Police Action") had terrible Shot/Kill Ratios. Even taking into consideration that the US Military killed the entire population of Vietnam a few times over.

The point is, though, that 'battle rifles' basically fire bullets with the range, power, and recoil of what you'd call a 'medium machine gun' or some 'sniper rifles', right? In SR4 terms, we can separate them that way. My house rule from before WAR! came out placed them in the Sport Rifle/Sniper Rifle category for that reason.

Average shot to kill ratio is approximately 10,000 round per kill in WW2 and before

Average shot to kill ratio was 100,000 rounds per kill during vietnam.

I have not heard the ratio in Afghanistan, Somalia or Iraq.

Last I heard it was up to 250000 per kill, but I can't confirm that.

So much for "FPS games making people into head-shot murder machines!", huh?




-k

Yeah, because shooting with your mouse is the same as shooting the real thing...

Yeah, well, try disabusing politicians and Jack Thompson of that notion.




-k

We probably could, but then we'd need to use The Chair Leg of Truth!

And then comics would become the new Evulz.

Was that.... was that a Farscape shout out?

Transmetropolitan. Spider Jerusalem finally completely loses it.

...

Yes, even he can lose what little restraint he has.

Well, part of that stems from the taliban/somali's/Iraqi insurgent typically being lousy shots, the medical advances the US has implemented and body armor. Casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, are significant less than Veitnahm, which is less than Korea, and less than WWII.

It's not just the accuracy of the bullets affecting this outcome.

A proper ratio would be mor akin to a made combat ineffective ratio or to hit ratio. But that is hard to do if the wounded are dragged or walk away...also suppressive fire by it's nature is not meant to hit the opponent, just to keep his head down (if he gets hit that is a bonus).

A stray round that hits you will hurt just as badly as a aimed round that hits you. Possibly more so.

'Course, the only Confirmed Kill I know about involved a 120mm smooth bore, and a firm demonstration as to why you don't piss of a tank crew.

And now, back to Battle Rifles!

From the RL perspective, battle rifles in the 60's, 70's and 80's were being replaced in droves by assault rifles. The recoil, weight of ammo, and of the weapons being a significant factor.

It does not translate well in SR terms cause recoil is always a +1 for rifles, and weight is not defined by RAW (though a GM could). Also in RL they are not that much more expensive than an Assault rifle.

Sure, I believe you when you say you have fired both with that little line right there. The actual bullet was anywhere from 142 grain to 175 grain. I think you were looking for mm instead, although your still wrong there. It is a 7.62mm diameter round with a 51mm case (actually about 51.2mm). Total cartridge length (bullet in case) was about 70mm.

M240B gunner on two tours Hooah!

-- Note that projectile diameter is not always what is commonly stated. For example: .30-06 is usually listed the same as 7.62x51mm NATO but its actually 7.82mm, 7.62x39mm Russian is actually 7.92mm, 5.56¥45mm is actually 5.7mm, and so on.

Quibbling aside, the real point is that the M14 and the M60 fire similar cartridges, right? It's a specific example of the general statement I made above: that 'battle rifles', in contrast to 'assault rifles', fire the kinds of cartridges you'd call 'high-powered' and would typically find used in 'medium machine guns' or 'sniper rifles'. Unless, of course, the power (grains) of the cartridges *is* vastly different? I'm asking.

.303 British Service! Now there was a cartridge!

IIRC, "Battle Rifles" would also include the old Bolt-Action models used in WWI/WWII as well, wouldn't they? Despite being considered "Hunting Rifles" today.

Well, at least, that's how people use the old SMLE Mk. 3/No. 1s and No. 4s, and Mauser Kar 98Ks/Gewehr 98s in Canada. 'Course, if pressed, I'm sure they could be damned useful as Battle Rifles once again.

I even heard of someone back home who was able to figure out how to do the "Mad Minute" with a Kar 98K. (The "Mad Minute" was used in WWI with SMLEs by experienced British Soldiers, and made the German side think that the British had equipped everyone with Machine Guns!).

Wikipedia says 'yes', although that's more of a grandfathered usage, I guess? I find their 'canonical' examples of the G3, the FAL, and the M14 acceptably convincing.

Well, the idea is the same. An accurate shot rather than rate of fire. The old style of shooting.

I see them developed from the idea of the "Designated Marksman Rifle" that the Druganov was designed for. Making a mid-way point for an Assault Rifle (A compromise of a Machine Gun and a Rifle-Rifle like the SMLE or M1 Garand) and a Sniper Rifle. The M-14 is a good candidate for it, considering it's developed from the M1 Garand. The G3 and FN FAL are also excellent choices as well for those countries that didn't have stockpiles of M-14s.

If it wasn't for the lack of a box magazine or semi-auto capability, they'd probably be dusting off the old WWII gals and putting them back into the arms of fighting men (And now women.). That is, if they could find enough.

Then again, it would give the US a damned good reason to buy those M1 Garands the South Koreans are trying to sell on the Civilian Market but the US Government won't as they are "Military Murder Machines" or some such nonsense.

It's probably a good thing the US military stored all those decommissioned M14s back in the 70s, rather than destroying them, huh?



-k

Would have been better to get them back in the hands of soldiers in Vietnam. I've heard more than one soldier complain about the replacement of the M-16s.

"We then scrimped and fought to get the M-14s we turned over back in our hands, but they'd already shipped out..."

I mean, you'd have to look at something like the Ross Rifle for worst long arm to issue troops for the situation. (Which would be another Battle Rifle, if it wasn't for the fact that it was a really crappy rifle for combat. Good target rifle, maybe a decent hunting rifle, worthless in combat. Absolutely worthless in the mud trenches of France!).

The problem with the Ross Rifle was not that it wasn't a good rifle, but the fact that it wasn't soldier proofed. Actually, part of the problems with the M16 were caused by the fact that it had really sucky soldier proofing. The AK47 on the other hand is one of the most soldier proofed weapons ever designed.

No, the problem with the Ross Rifle is that it doesn't handle non-laboratory conditions. Even as a Hunting Rifle you have to be careful with it in the field. As a soldier's weapon, it downright sucks. (Not to mention the tendency of having the bolt be able to be put in backwards with dramatic results!).

I recall reading once that the M-16 was designed for the US Air Force, for their guards to patrol air fields. Which isn't too bad. As a standard issue rifle for a jungle, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD idea! Oh, "And it's so futuristic that you don't even need to clean it.", IIRC, the designer nearly had a heart attack when he heard that troops had been told that. And, a funny one, "The recoil is so light, you can shoot it off your forehead.", apparently someone thought it was funny to tell a Marine that... So he did.

And, apparently it's having an issue with the fine sand of Afghanistan. Although, to be fair, almost everything has a problem with that...

To sum up everything... "They just don't build 'em like they used to..."

The M-16 is considered a good rifle now. The problem was how it was marketed They claimed and the US Army believed you did not need to clean the weapon and that caused many of the jams. They claimed the change in ammunition fixed the issue, but they also added a cleaning kit to the weapon. Compared to the AK-47 the M-16 has Low recoil, decent accuracy and lightweight makes it fine for soldiers who take care of their weapons.

So, the rifle only works if shot in a vaccuum enviroment targeting cylindric people?

Spherical.

Now you are being silly

The Ross Rifle? Pretty much. The Ross will jam if dirty, and fighting (And even hunting) is dirty business. Compare that to the SMLE which pretty much soldiers on in the worst conditions on Earth. (Mud Trenches, Jungles, Deserts, the Arctic Circle where it's still the Standard Issue for Canadian Rangers as most Assault Rifles jam, and so on.).

As for the M-16, I think it's reputation will linger until it's replaced at last. And a LUGGAGE HANDLE! (Sorry, ".303" reference. Good comic.).

So, yeah, griping out old weapons aside, back to Battle Rifles of Shadowrun! ... Anyone know what the UCAS Standard Issue is?

Following the "logical" pattern, I would say it is the Colt M23.

And then you've got the carbine, and the water version, etc. Handy.

I thought this would be the best place for this but what are the stats and details on battle rifles from War? I don't want to buy it for what is probably one page of information that I want. Then again I guess I could buy it, copy that page, and then return it but that seems like bad taste.

Take a sport rifle, give it 20~30 round clip, burst fire capability, and you got a battle rifle. That is pretty much what they did.

Rightly so.

Thats it huh? Awesome, thanks.

Well, that's all a Battle Rifle is, actually, when you think about it.

I mean, a number of Sniper Rifles are basically militarized Hunting Rifles. The Remington 700 is the basic design for the US Marine Corps M40 Sniper Rifle.

So you have Semi-Auto Combat Rifles/Hunting Rifles (Like the M1 Garand, which was the basis for the M-14) made into Battle Rifles by the replacement of barrels to Match Grade and a scope mount added, and a modification to allow for burst fire. Have a nice day. Won't work for old Bolt Action Combat/Hunting Rifles, admittedly. But I'm sure the ol' SMLEs and Kar 98Ks are still around for shooting game and home intruders.