..AR's that would be Colt 23 or AK-97 w/ gas- vent 3, shock pad and underbarrel-weight
and maybe smartlink and/or improved range finder- mod

them both are field tested, dependable and for most important who must get lot of them: cheap.

Heh, if I were a megacorp selling weapons, I'd make sure there's good media coverage about all shortcomings of the soldiers' equipment, at least as long as they weren't using my gear, yet

Interesting run idea, btw....

As long as you don't get stuck with knock-offs. Not all AKs are made the same. Ditto with the AR-15 family.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "knock-off" AK. More appropriate would perhaps be junk. Just about every Soviet country seemed to make those things along with china; Russians seemed happy to export the design, not just the rifle.

.. i am just wondering why Ares Arms have not put to market High quality basic Assault Rifle
no Underbarrel grenade Launcher..just keeping the same 2 rc from their Alpha model, smartgun link,and ammo capasity, althought i wouldn't mind if added
Melee hardening like their Bravo model (from WAR!!)..

An elitist attitude?

You have a point.

Which brings me to:

The ALPHA family


Alpha Prime
The Alpha as you know it and love it.

Alpha Beta
The same old Alpha minus the grenade launcher. Special discounts available for law enforcement and security forces.

Alpha C
The new SMG format Alpha, specially designed for security forces in CQB. Does not have a grenadelauncher, uses Submachinegun ranges, and features higher concealability, melee hardening and a tactical flashlight by default, which is available in either standard or infrared. Special licensing conditions means this is the right gun for YOU if you don't have AA corp or law-enforcement licenses. [R-legal code]

Alpha - Civilian
The Alpha Beta in semi-automatic configuration. To sweeten the deal you get a special pain-job for free with your order.

Alpha - SAW
The Alpha Beta with a special 100rd drum magazine and pre-installed gas-vent III. Never run out of bullets again.

.. adding Ares Alpha Key : same as basic but Shotgun instead of GL...
..SMG is looking REAL good.. (maybe making Flashlight optional and optional Electronic Firing Mechanism )

Interestingly a large number of the AAA Corps have Media divisions, including Ares (Mega Media I think is theirs)

have you not read through the cannon companion? or the 4e equivalent?

i have read them, why??

I can't read... I imagine colt has the market cornered in the high quality basics

What about Europe...i guess S-K's Onotari Arms would have their equivalent of Alpha... ( wo/ grenade launcher)
( thinking of RL H&K 417/416.)

The Ares Bravo is in War!/Bogota! It has a Masterkey system rather than the grenade launcher.

Bravo, that have a Vibrosword..

..Thinking of Sierra model.. Modding it by removing Stun Baton (costs only 400 y) and then having a basic AR..
i thing that legality codes are bit off..Ares w/ stun baton having a larger code than basic model w/ GL...RIIIIIGHT????!!

Just another to chalk up to rules nonsequitors caused by a rush to get product to market most likely

i thought that too.. maybe 12R would be better choice for Sierra and wo/ stun baton..10R??

I'd use a blanket for any option which doesn't significantly upgrade it's offensive capability (not to be confused with it's capability to be offensive) so a stun baton is a relatively minor addition where an under-barrel tactical nuke launch tube would be a major shift

So, first off, I'm new here. I became interested in shadowrun a few months ago, and have started to delve more heavily into it as of the last few weeks. When it comes to forum communities, I'm normally a lurker, but I saw this discussion and, it being within my areas of interest, I decided to pitch in.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert. I'm not even a moderately knowledgeable amateur. I've fired various weapons a few times. Just to make my position clear I'm a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but I'd prefer not to get into that part of the discussion. Now, as regards weapons and military organization...

While what I've heard suggests that indeed, the M16 is a flawed and unreliable weapon, I have seen some reports that point at manufacturing quality rather than design as a major culprit. Perhaps the design is less robust against manufacturing flaws, and to me that is a design flaw, but if manufactured properly it can still function reliably. I remember one report of someone who'd had the pleasure of using an early run of M16s, with machined and chrome-plated parts that worked interchangeably between the different guns. That person, and his buddies, had no reliability issues. Of course, he could have been lying through his teeth, but I don't know him and am not in a position to make that judgement.

Perhaps the Militia did indeed have to show up with their gear; nonetheless, it's a poor way to run a military. The Marian reforms in ancient Rome were a major reason that Rome's military became an effective fighting force. Making it practical for anyone to be a soldier, by providing gear, training, and logistical support increased the number and quality of soldiers they could put on the field. However, in later days government organized logistics and government supplied weapons did reduce the effectiveness of the Legions somewhat, but that was secondary to other issues of the time.

Better ideas? I suppose I could suggest various ways to improve upon weapon selection for the US military. In a few seconds I came up with an idea of allowing commissioned officers to make an anonymous vote based on the results of weapons trials. Without other prohibiting factors, it might be practical (in fact, I see little reason why not, other than increased voting difficulty) to allow NCOs and even anyone who has completed basic training to participate in the vote. However, the logical outgrowth of this is that companies try to convince various people their weapon is best... and then you end up with politics, which ideally would not play an internal role in the military.

Regarding providing soldiers with a gear budget, it's not a bad idea. That said, any gear they those would have to pass basic standards. For non-weapon gear, I suppose this could be as simple as a company having their gear tested to the standards. For the extreme variety that some might desire in their weapons, I suppose they could purchase as few (or as many) as they wanted that they could fit in their budget, of whatever type. However, any weapon they purchased would be what they used on regular and random individual and unit skills tests, and if they use it on a skills test they should be able to pass a physical standards test while carrying it. It could of course get much more detailed than this, but that's just a basic idea.

I do have to agree with this; the US military is almost annoyingly standardized in some places, despite the fact that some groups are almost cripplingly unable to work together. I think there's a valuable place for irregular forces, as long as they have a competent commander who uses them in intelligent ways. For one thing, irregular forces typically function better with significantly different unit structure; a force composed of people physically disabled or limited in various ways might have smaller functional groups, so as to allow the proper capabilities for different missions. This is all simply talk, of course, but I do agree that there should be a place for irregular soldiers in the military, as long as they're being used intelligently and are willing to follow orders (or at the very least, vague guidelines).

As I said, this is my first post. I hope I didn't break any sacred taboo or anything.

The issue with the M-16 was multitude. From what I hear, it was designed for the Air Force for use to protect airfields and was never meant as an all-issued battle assault rifle. It was issued to soldiers with ammunition that used different gunpowder than it was tested with (A dirtier powder), and a number of soldiers were told many many false things about the weapon ("It's so high tech it cleans itself" when it needed more cleaning than its predecessor, "You can shoot it off your forehead" which caused quite a few incidents and injuries, and so on), and it was sent into a jungle warfare situation (Read: Damned tough on any firearm!) without practical field testing. Also, it was one of the first to be issued en mass made from a lot of aluminum and plastic when soldiers were used to and trained on rifles made from steel and wood.

Eugene Stoner, it's designer, apparently was aghast when he heard all these events happening at ONCE (This is where I heard all of this, on a biography of him, IIRC).

Hopefully the M22/M23 family in Shadowrun have mitigated a lot of the issues of the old girl. But I really wish the XM-8 had been accepted. That looked like it was properly designed and tested, even if it is still made of plastic and such...

@Rending
Really? You don't want to get into the second amendment stuff, and take the thread back away from on topic SR, yet you bring up the Militia vs Regular army argument with a vengeance?

Can't we let the off topic stuff go?

Hey, he's new. First post and everything, Daylen. And at least he didn't bring up the "Clips Vs. Magazines" discussions.

OK, automatic weapons (Burst fire or Full auto) in civilian hands? I could see the CAS going OK on this ("Look at our country, put your finger on it. Move it south. Yeah, I think I like the idea of every redneck in Texas having an AK."), but the UCAS?

Count my blessings...? sure, nor did he bring up M1911 vs M9, though he almost brought up AR vs AK... It makes it hard for me to abstain from going off topic.

Na, Texas isn't as free loving as you think. Louisiana is more like what people associate with Texas, where it comes to firearms; for example Texas requires a permit to carry a firearm, and the firearm must be concealed, LA only requires a permit to conceal a pistol, and alot of people don't even pay attention to that requirement. In 2070 I could see Cajuns joining the State Militia and getting permission to carry their full auto AKs, to keep safe in the swamp. Since simply rural areas became dangerous I can only imagine how it is in the LA Swamp with awakened alligators. I'd not want to be out there with anything less than a RPK HMG or Vigorous Assault Cannon.

"De Swamp, she also fulla de magic. But youse be careful, as de magic a de swamp, she can leave wit' you, I gar'on'tee."

I'm much more knowledgeable about ancient history (although not all that knowledgeable there, and mostly about the Romans) than I am about recent history. I wasn't even aware there WAS a conflict between the idea of a standing army and a militia. To me, Rome's army before and after the Marian reforms seemed to be similar, if not exactly the same. Just to make it clear, I'm not supporting a standing professional army or a militia over each other; they're different systems for different purposes and can (or at least should) exist simultaneously. America's bid for independence was based on what (look like to me) many militias, although they were brought into a single chain of command. As for argument points... I'm going to ignore the clip versus magazine one, because any argument over that would seem trivial (although it does annoy me, and there may be some practical reason to lecture on it, I think I have a decent grip of the distinction). As for the rest? I have opinions on M1911 vs M9, and less of an opinion on AR vs AK. Unless somebody else starts an actual discussion on those, I'm staying out of that, and there are better places for that anyways.
Regarding the actual topic: Since I'm new, and have a very loose grasp of the background material, I'll just say I'm finding this extremely interesting, and potentially useful in the near future.

"oh stewardess, I speak jive"

Its not as big a deal today as in 1700s, but lets just leave it at this, a simple question: what does the second amendment have to say about the security of a FREE State? And remember words were chosen VERY carefully back then, and they knew what a regular army was, and a militia it was not. But all that is off topic and should be discussed elsewhere. Along with M1911 vs whatever.

Ohhhh. Ah, yes, I understand what you're talking about. I never saw that as anathema to the existence of a standing army, however. I think that's all that should be said on THAT topic. While I've seen political and religious discussions last hundreds of pages of civil discussion, any good one is always on the verge of breaking out in flames, so I guess I'll just sit quietly and wait for more interesting topics to listen to and learn from.

One of the few accents I can't phonetically spell, ironically.

That movie & it's sequel has caused me more sleepless nights of insane laughter & pain than I care to remember or admit. During the 80's, it was that movie & Bill Murray's Stripes was everywhere with the quotes.

Modern ones work fine when kept lubricated. I shot one in a class that had over 10,000 rounds since it had been cleaned. And they are very deadly at close range. For example, this thread: Why you do not want to get shot with an M16...(Warning: Disturbing photograph). And yes, it's a gory and disturbing set of photos of what 5.56 does to someone's leg. Don't click on it if you don't want to see it.

So do you think that is an L or an M?

Meaning?

Light or Moderate wound. As in did he take the full 8M or did he reduce it once?

Old damage codes. Before the 4^th.

Got it. Threw me for a minute there.
Thanks.

Some of us refuse to change with the times

*Looks at Bull and the Cyberdeck on his arm* I noticed.

That is totally an M or S wound - it depends on how much damage to the femur there is. An L wound, being only a +1 TN, is the equivalent to a cut or large bruise.

Think about it in terms of healing times: "How long would that bullet wound take to heal to "unwounded" assuming basic medical attention?"

The X-Ray shows some rather excessive damage to the bone, as it was concussion that apparently caused it. That usually causes splintering which is bad, and hard to set right. Pins are usually required, IIRC.

...

Sorry, picked up a few things from my OR/ER Nurse Grandmother. I might be right off, but...

That is much worse than a cut or large bruise... Did you not notice the pic showing the femur was broken something harsh? I've seen dead things that looked in better shape than that guys leg...

I think the dude got a S or maybe D wound. If it was D, then he was either stabilized by medical staff prior to bleeding out or self-stabilized by making his roll.

This is why I'm bothered by Assault rifles being M and such a low M at that. I get that they wanted the damage to be low base so that when on full auto the damage would be somewhat manageable or survivable.

...Yes? That's why I said it's an M or an S wound, and NOT an L wound.

I misread what you wrote.

The society is at least this armed.

My two cents: How many people who legally own firearms nowadays will (outside of a military situation) actually utilize those firearms in an act of self-defense or self-preservation? I would imagine it will be a very, very small percentage.

Now, does that small chance actually impact the number of people who own firearms? I doubt it. To a lot of people, it's a nice thing to have... a security blanket of sorts, a 'better to have and not need than need and not have' security measure. I would imagine it's the same with the world of 2070. If firearms are legal and commonly available (and depending on the location, they are and they definitely are) then I imagine you'd have at least the same percentage of people owning those then, as you have now... for primarily the same reasons.

In a lot of the shadowrun stories, the majority of corporate employees seem to act like the corporate employees of today: They trust in authority to take care of things... it's why Panicbuttons are so prevalent. From what I've read, other than the occasional global issue (IE crash 2.0) many employees will rarely if ever see the shadowy side of the dystopia they live in (unless you live in a Pink Mohawk campaign, perhaps, where a building blows up every other day) and those situations that arise should (in the belief of the employee) be taken care of by corporate/government security.

A corp employee who owns a firearm will most likely do so out of a sense of comfort, not out of any kind of 'statistical chance of conflict' or what have you. Realistically, in the case of a corporate sheep getting caught up in an actual shadowrun going down in the proximity? Three words: Someone else's problem. The typical response of most of these people will be to hide, hit the panic button, and wait for the scary noise to go away. Let the heavily armed and armored security force respond to the threat... that's how it works now, and I imagine it'll be even worse 60 years from now when someone built (cybernetically) for combat has such a massive edge over the typical employee built around a deskjob. This is especially true as Shadowrun seems to move further and further away from runs involving violent conflict and random collateral damage, and more towards the black trenchcoat, in-and-out, subtle runs.

Realistically, most will recognize that having a pistol will not make an ounce of difference between being killed and not being killed (especially when the chances of your attacker having incredible speed, reflexes, implanted aiming hardware, and heavy subdermal bodyarmor), at least on a logical level... and so owning a firearm is not based upon reason, but (again) upon emotion/feeling safe. As such, I believe that shadowrun has no more and no less of an armed society than the locations they're based around now. Heck, in 2070, even a lot of the awakened wildlife seems to have been cleared out of the major population centers. Gone, typically, are the days of a random hellhound chewing on somebody in Seattle's business district. As to the barrens? Well, many corp citizens will make a long, healthy life goal of not going to the Barrens. At some point, the only way for an employee to survive a firefight with a typical street sam will be to become a street sam on his own, at which point... what company will hire him for a typical desk job? That kind of paranoia (is it really paranoia when it could some day be necessary?) looks bad and might freak out the other employees... plus, obviously, someone decked out as a street sam for a desk job is a shadowrunner in disguise... even if he's not!

This brings up another point... how often do shadowrunners infiltrate businesses by posing for entry-level jobs? Would this kind of behavior lead companies to be suspicious of employees with heavier-than-typical weapons and armor? Even arms and armor that are legal... why would they need that kind of firepower? Etc, etc.

Again, just my two cents.

If you are posing as a worker you don't bring your assault rifle to work unless it's "Ares Bring your Alpha to Work Day!"

How many people do you personally know who were killed because were not wearing a seat belt? I don't know anyone personally. Statistically it's highly unlikely that I will need to wear a seatbelt on any give day. Does that mean I don't put on a seat belt? No.

It's extremely unlikely that on any given day you will need a gun. I do know several people who have found themselves in a situation facing bad people who intended to do bad things to them and convinced them to desist so while aiming a firearm at them. Possibly what convinced them was the force of their personality, but I have my doubts.

@kzt
Before seat belts became mandatory? Most of the people who died in car accidents. One of the most usefull inventions of the US-Army.
(I guess the number of "people saved by seatbelt" goes in the millions. Well, if I think of it (cosidering how long cars are around), it is probably more in the billions. )
One year in germany alone means about 2 million car accidents.
So statistically it is more than likely you will need one to prevent injury or death one day. (Unless you are not driving a car)

First off, not saying that buying a weapon is pointless; I've owned firearms for home defense, though thanks to a recent move (and needing to have spare money to move, as well as less gear to move with) I am currently without; I'm just saying nobody I know has a legitimate story in which having a firearm defused a situation or saved their life... and I come from Waco, Texas, where firearms are a pretty common thing. I'm not saying such situations don't occur (I carried a small revolver for running... never used it, glad I didn't have to, but would have been glad to have it if such a situation ever popped up. The majority of people who own those 'just in case' firearms will never need them, and most (at least hopefully) will hope to never need them. It ends up being a security blanket, and I figure that people in 2070 will see this as well. Heck, there are shows that show shadowrunners in action. Think about watching an anime or an outrageous action movie and knowing that there are really people out there like that... and that's what life is like in 2070. Why did I have a firearm? Why did my father? Why did my friends? Aside from the fun of the firing range... because we feel safer. We aren't necessarily safer (at least, not to a significant degree) but we feel that way.

What I am saying is that people seem to defend one side or the other of this conversation with statistical facts; "X number of crimes in Y country are related to guns, or violence is more likely to happen here, or there, etc," which does in fact work somewhat now... but not so much in 2070, where a typical shadowrunner can bare-hand kill a pistol-armed corp citizen before said citizen can get a shot off... and even if the corp citizen does get a shot off, the round isn't likely to penetrate the shadowrunner's underwear, let alone subdermal armor/ mage protection / drone case. Right now, firearms are an equalizer. In 2070, combat cybernetics are the new equalizer, with firearms being merely a tool for the cybernetic character to use. Granted, not every shadowrunner is cybernetically enhanced, but you can replace 'cybernetics' with combat magic or armored/armored drones, and you'll have the same result: a corp citizen unable to defend himself regardless of what legal equipment he uses.

So, yes, in 2070, the typical corp citizen (even armed with a pistol) will need to recognize that in almost any combat situation that pops up, that pistol will just get him killed. It's a point that's somewhat true today (consider a group of thugs with full-auto weaponry, body armor, and the training to effectively use weaponry and teamwork versus a few guys with pistols) and more true in the future. On the other hand, I don't see the security blanket aspect of owning a firearm changing any time soon. Even if hellhounds don't roam the streets of Seattle now... it's only been a few years. People still remember the turmoil of the 50s and 60s, etc.

Notwithstanding what you had to say about ownership for self-preservation - and I think you made an excellent point - we should also all remember that probably the majority of people today don't own firearms for self-defense, either: they own them for hunting, and pest control, as collectible items, as heirlooms. Surely this trend will continue into the future, as well.