Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Magazines, extended magazines, crappy magazines
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Yerameyahu
Hehe. Snow_Fox *did* specifically ask 'what pistol fires that?', of course. I'm just saying that I do consider it 'a pistol round' (assuming I was given the forced choice between 'pistol' and 'rifle'), and that position isn't based on whether or not the 5-7 (I just refuse to use their stupid name) handgun exists. smile.gif

I've played Battlefield 3, which includes the 'PDW-R' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_PDR), but it fires 5.56 rounds; if it existed in SR4, I'd class that under AR (just a very compact one; a 'carbine'). I disprefer the alternative, where it could be an SMG with a bunch of special rules (similar to 'Use Heavy Pistol Ranges', etc.). That just seems like more trouble.
kzt
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jan 22 2012, 03:46 PM) *
Yeah the fact that the company also sells a pistol that fires the round doesn't make that round a pistol cartridge nor the ammo H&K desinged for MP7.
Both of those area a PDW cartridges.
To say otherwise is like claiming that if i build a pistol that can fire .308 Lapua it suddenly stop being a rifle cartridge and turns into a pistol cartridge

The 5.7 round is essentially a center-fire 22 magnum. And indeed, lots of people make .22 magnum pistols. The 5.7x28mm round was designed in response to NATO wanting a replacement for the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge. The 9x19mm was originally designed for the Luger, which I think you'll agree is a pistol, not a PDW?

.22 WRM 30 grains at 2200 fps.
5.7x28mm 31 grains at 2350 fps.
Yerameyahu
But did they want to replace that cartridge mainly because of pistols, or because of SMGs? In the end, it doesn't matter, but it's interesting. smile.gif What the 9x19 was *originally* designed for doesn't matter to anything.
kzt
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jan 22 2012, 04:34 PM) *
But did they want to replace that cartridge mainly because of pistols, or because of SMGs? In the end, it doesn't matter, but it's interesting. smile.gif What the 9x19 was *originally* designed for doesn't matter to anything.

9x19mm is still the "standard" NATO pistol round. Hence the M9 Beretta the US military issues. So NATO was soliciting a replacement pistol and SMG round, not a rifle round.
Yerameyahu
So just both, then. smile.gif Cool. In that case (replacing both), it stills seems convenient to refer to it as a 'PDW round' at the moment, to differentiate from the 'old' kind.
CanRay
The major question is, who is aggressive against NATO or the US (Who, let's admit it, runs NATO!) that uses combat armor as a standard issue?
Yerameyahu
It's just for soft body armor, I thought? But they're always planning for wars that don't exist. smile.gif
CanRay
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jan 22 2012, 09:14 PM) *
It's just for soft body armor, I thought? But they're always planning for wars that don't exist. smile.gif
Oh, like looking for WMDs in Iraqistan? nyahnyah.gif
Yerameyahu
No. Like developing and deploying weapons that don't have targets, like you said. The usual example I hear is the F-22 (why be 50 years ahead of the enemy, when you're still 30 ahead now?). It's not necessarily a criticism; all things being equal, it *is* better to have more advanced technology *before* you need it. All things usually aren't equal, though. smile.gif
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jan 22 2012, 09:01 PM) *
The major question is, who is aggressive against NATO or the US (Who, let's admit it, runs NATO!) that uses combat armor as a standard issue?


The Russians were going to do it, and that cause the US military to start issuing that green tip ammo. But then it turns out that the Russian armor sucked balls, so oh well. The green tip probably wasn't necessary. We still have green tip, which you can stock up on at a gun show, if you want. I always see it available, and I have at least one friend who has stocked up on it.

Personally I don't see the point. Look at what happened with the green tip in Mogidishu. Little .22 caliber holes in skinny Somali dudes who just kept fighting.

What proportion of people you meet who are going to try and kill you and which will require you to respond to them with deadly force are going to be wearing level 4 body armor? Far better to get the improved cavitation of a JHP or JSP, right? And ordinary FMJ should be good enough to punch through the vast majority of armor that you're likely to encounter in a hypothetical situation where some felon armors up before assaulting your home where you've got your AR ready. I mean, he'd have to be wearing a freaking military getup for the FMJ not to pierce his armor.

Don't forget, he's assaulting your home, so you have the defensive terrain advantage. The best he can do is charge in with an AR or something and spray rounds everywhere to try and suppress you or hit you through the walls or something as he charges up the stairs. But if he does anything other than that, you can be waiting for him covering down the stairs from the top, you can be in a corner behind the door, or whatever. When you open fire on him at a distance of ten feet or less, even if he is wearing armor, what's going to happen when you dump your entire 30 round mag of .223 FMJ into his chest? I think he's still getting pretty messed up.

If I were really concerned about inadequate armor or cover penetration with my AR, I'd honestly just pull out my old Mosin Nagant and go to town with that. I mean, 7.62x59R, you know? And if I'm in my home and somehow that fails to do the trick, there's always the old school spike bayonet into the eye socket.
Yerameyahu
How did this become about 'defending your home'? It's the military he asked about. smile.gif And AFAIK it's about inadequate penetration from SMGs, not ARs, right?
CanRay
Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles. SMGs are for when assault rifles and assault carbines are too big for the situation (House-To-House Fighting, mainly.).
Yerameyahu
Except they're never too big. smile.gif Except when a couple points of Concealability matter (never).
kzt
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jan 22 2012, 09:47 PM) *
Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles. SMGs are for when assault rifles and assault carbines are too big for the situation (House-To-House Fighting, mainly.).

Only extremely a few specialized and very highly trained units get issued SMGs these days. Plus European paramilitary police and some US police units. Pretty much everyone in a real military either gets a pistol, carbine or rifle, sometimes more than one, or a pistol plus a heavy weapon or an AFV to run.

In a war you can't yell "cut" and have someone drive up and swap out your SMGs for rifles or vice versa when the situation changes. It's bad enough having to shoot at people 500 meters away with an M4. Try doing it with a 9mm SMG because you cleared the house and are now looking at bad guys setting up a PKM on the other side of the lake or field who are offended by your presence.
KarmaInferno
Yeah, SMGs these days are really only issued to folks that will need them as their regular duty weapon, mostly troops or LEOs that operate in tight quarters all the time. Also, airborne troops due to gear load limitations.

Even then a lot of folks in those jobs still get issued full rifles instead of SMGs, due to the need to fight at multiple ranges.

There was a brief period where 'rear echelon' military folks were issued carbines and PDWs due to a percieved lesser need for a full combat weapon, but even that has fallen by the wayside since the 'front line' is such a flexible fluid thing in current battlefields. Even support troops are getting issued full assault rifles more and more now.

Plus, not having to supply and maintain multiple weapons platforms = good for budget.



-k
Warlordtheft
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jan 22 2012, 08:01 PM) *
The major question is, who is aggressive against NATO or the US (Who, let's admit it, runs NATO!) that uses combat armor as a standard issue?



Some of the Taliban I heard do havwe body armor. But as pointed out in WAR! and Feral Cities--when life is cheap (such as it is in the drekholes in those places)--why bother? If I Mr. Tinpot dictator for life can equip 1,000 troops with an AK-97 and 4 mags of ammo for ~ 600,000 nuyen. Do I realy care to spend the 800,000 nuyen on an armor jacket or do I pocket that in to my ZO account.
CanRay
QUOTE (Warlordtheft @ Jan 23 2012, 11:36 AM) *
Some of the Taliban I heard do havwe body armor. But as pointed out in WAR! and Feral Cities--when life is cheap (such as it is in the drekholes in those places)--why bother? If I Mr. Tinpot dictator for life can equip 1,000 troops with an AK-97 and 4 mags of ammo for ~ 600,000 nuyen. Do I realy care to spend the 800,000 nuyen on an armor jacket or do I pocket that in to my ZO account.
Especially when they die and you can just hand that AK to another untrained, illiterate farmer your elite forces impressed into the army anyhow. Ammo is all you have to keep buying.

The elite forces you have to protect yourself and your palace, and ensure Mr. Tinpot Dictator For Life stays alive and has an army of untrained, illiterate farmers, OTOH, are going to have better equipment and body armor most likely. Mr. Tinpot Dictator For Life might have an AK himself, but it'd be gold plated.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jan 22 2012, 10:57 PM) *
How did this become about 'defending your home'? It's the military he asked about. smile.gif And AFAIK it's about inadequate penetration from SMGs, not ARs, right?


Eh, it was just my stream of consciousness about green tip.

SMGs have serious range issues as well. Another reason they're less common nowadays.
ZeroPoint
Its also worth noting that JHP rounds are banned under the Hague Conventions and are not used by NATO forces, nor any other rounds that would be banned under said conventions....so would not be used against unarmored soldiers anyway.

In short, if you get drafted into the military of said Tinpot Dictator, if your body armor isn't lvl 4, you may better off not wearing any at all if you will be fighting NATO forces....(well, except for the whole grenedes, artillery, airstrikes and things).
KarmaInferno
More specifically, it is expanding bullets that are banned. This is pretty much Jacketed Hollow Point, although also may include unjacketed soft lead bullets - there have been jacketed .22 caliber rounds developed for military use, because it was feared that the regular unjacketed rounds do expand on hitting soft tissue and might be considered to violate the restriction.

There have also been bullets with hollow voids that are NOT designed to expand and use those hollows for other reasons - usually to do with either optimizing the aerodynamic performance of the round, or cause greater tumbling of the round after impact, which is legal even in military rounds.



-k
CanRay
Just bring a Ma-Deuce with ball rounds. biggrin.gif
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (ZeroPoint @ Jan 23 2012, 05:49 PM) *
Its also worth noting that JHP rounds are banned under the Hague Conventions and are not used by NATO forces, nor any other rounds that would be banned under said conventions....so would not be used against unarmored soldiers anyway.

In short, if you get drafted into the military of said Tinpot Dictator, if your body armor isn't lvl 4, you may better off not wearing any at all if you will be fighting NATO forces....(well, except for the whole grenedes, artillery, airstrikes and things).


Eh, just wear a Vietnam era flak vest to protect you from shrapnel. Besides, the steel plates wrapped in ballistic nylon would be a great workout.
Saint Sithney
QUOTE (kzt @ Jan 22 2012, 03:16 PM) *
The 5.7 round is essentially a center-fire 22 magnum. And indeed, lots of people make .22 magnum pistols. The 5.7x28mm round was designed in response to NATO wanting a replacement for the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge. The 9x19mm was originally designed for the Luger, which I think you'll agree is a pistol, not a PDW?

.22 WRM 30 grains at 2200 fps.
5.7x28mm 31 grains at 2350 fps.


The 5.7 round has less drop, and more power at extreme (pistol) ranges.
IMO, that's part of what differentiates a pistol round from a PDW (or, at least, not pistol) round.

That said, I'd take a Kel Tec PMR-30 any day. Because, you know, stacking 30 bullets into a pistol mag is way fun.
Snow_Fox
SMG's fire pistol rounds- like the Uzi, MP-40 and MP-5 fire 9mm. or the Thompson or M-3 fire .45.
Carbines were originally developed as light rifles for horsemen-if you've seen the movie Gettysburg, the union cavalry dug in when the battle opened had carbines-not as powerful or acucrate as rifles but better than hand guns.

In WW 2 the thought was for rear eschelon troops, truck drivers, communications men and squad leaders who should be directing men instead of picking their own targets etc who might be in a fight by accident didn't need a big ol' heavy ( and expensive) Garand and so they got the M-2 carbine Reliable but lacking the take down power of a full rifle.- The Sgt in Saving Private Ryan was carrying one on D-Day.

Fast forward to the current world. The P-90 (and by extension it's civilian sister the PS-90) was orignally supposed to be just that. a light weapon for NATO tankers to use if they have to bail out. The contract went to the nice men at FN who promply over engineered the weapon into a wonderful piece but too damn expensive for a back up weapon you'd hope to never use. Seriously in local gun shops a PS-90 littlerally costs twice as much as an M-16 or AK.
Yerameyahu
It's still closest to an SMG, a fancy and specialized one, but still. While 'carbine' has meant various things over the decades, it's pretty clear that the best current use for it (esp. in SR4) is 'shortened/compact AR'.
CanRay
M1 Carbine. The M2 was a select-fire version that didn't work nearly as well (barrel issues, from what I understand.). But, yeah, same idea. Assault Rifles replaced Battle Rifles and Carbines by being Carbine-Sized and SMG Full-Auto Capable. Assault Carbines were developed as fighting got even closer in combat and house-to-house became more common, but you also needed something that could shoot a block or two down with accuracy.

FN does tend to over-engineer things. That's why their FN FAL, which used to be damned near the NATO standard, is no almost longer used (And why the Israelis went to the Galil). Honestly, NATO tends to over-engineer everything. There's a reason the AK is still the preferred weapon in a lot of places, and it's not because it's just a bullet hose, but because it's a RELIABLE bullet hose.

To give the bad joke, "So easy a child can use it. And they do." Which is even worse in Winnipeg, as we have Child Soldier Refugees here. frown.gif
kzt
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jan 26 2012, 08:48 PM) *
FN does tend to over-engineer things. That's why their FN FAL, which used to be damned near the NATO standard, is no almost longer used (And why the Israelis went to the Galil).

The reason why it isn't used any longer isn't because it wasn't very good. Can you suggest any major power that issues a 58 year old 7.62mmx51 (or comparable caliber) battle rifle of any manufacture to all their infantrymen? Doesn't that suggest something about half-century old battle rifles rather than any given half-century old battle rifle?
CanRay
QUOTE (kzt @ Jan 27 2012, 12:56 AM) *
The reason why it isn't used any longer isn't because it wasn't very good. Can you suggest any major power that issues a 58 year old 7.62mmx51 (or comparable caliber) battle rifle of any manufacture to all their infantrymen? Doesn't that suggest something about half-century old battle rifles rather than any given half-century old battle rifle?
Not all their infantrymen, but the Canadian Arctic Rangers are all issued .303 British Service SMLEs, mostly No.4s, but a few MkIII/No.1s are in there as well.
Warlordtheft
QUOTE (kzt @ Jan 26 2012, 11:56 PM) *
The reason why it isn't used any longer isn't because it wasn't very good. Can you suggest any major power that issues a 58 year old 7.62mmx51 (or comparable caliber) battle rifle of any manufacture to all their infantrymen? Doesn't that suggest something about half-century old battle rifles rather than any given half-century old battle rifle?


Umm the US army still does as a sniper rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_Enhanced_Battle_Rifle.
CanRay
Well, DMR, but close enough.
Daddy's Little Ninja
Isn't the M-16 nearly 60 years old? it was used in Vietnam in the 60's
thorya
QUOTE (Daddy's Little Ninja @ Jan 27 2012, 03:40 PM) *
Isn't the M-16 nearly 60 years old? it was used in Vietnam in the 60's


More like 50. It wasn't finished when they started fielding it in '63.
Yerameyahu
But that's also not a battle rifle.
CanRay
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jan 27 2012, 05:20 PM) *
But that's also not a battle rifle.
It's barely a rifle.

OK OK, bad Ray, they "fixed" it, despite what I've been hearing from folks just home from The Sandbox...
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jan 27 2012, 02:42 PM) *
It's barely a rifle.

OK OK, bad Ray, they "fixed" it, despite what I've been hearing from folks just home from The Sandbox...


Hey, I loved my M-16A2. There were many like it, but it was Mine... smile.gif
Snow_Fox
Bolt actions like the M-14 and SMLE are prefered in cold climated because they have relatively few moving parts to freeze up. It's kind of like revolvers are not as quick as smei's BUT their simplicity in certain situations makes them the go to weapn.

The AK-47 is liked by rebellions because it is relaible and incredibly hard to screw up so uneducated people can maintain it in relatively little time. Kalishnakov designed it do the parts barely held together-lots of loose fit and room so it's hard to jam. By comparrison the M-16 takes a lot of work to maintain, that was why is was such a mess when it was first deployed in 'Nam. in perfect working condition the M-16 is a much better weapon hitting harder at longer range. The AK's advantage is you can drag it ass backwards through a swamp and still expect it to go bang.

For long term weapons. The British SMLE was introduced before WW1 and was still being used in Korea and as Canray explained, it is still in use in Canada today a century later. Along the same line the Brown Bess was first intorduced in the 1720's and was still pretty much unchanged, though marginally lighter, at Waterloo in 1815. The BAR was deployed for WW1 and was still in use in Vietnam. The Browning 1911 was introduced in, well, 1911 and was retired for political reasons in the 1980's, it is still a wonderful weapon

and lastly, although it's not a rifle, we have the Browning M-2 heavy machine gun, the 'Ma -duce' .50 cal, developed in the 1930's as an anti-tank gun it is STILL in use today as the heavy machine gun of the US military-Can I point out that the nice people at Browning seem to have been brilliant beyond their time. (and this is why I miss raygun, he could politley pick up the threads I snagged.)
kzt
The M-2 was actually designed in in the closing days of WWI and produced in 1921.

It wasn't "the nice people at Browning". It was John Moses Browning who was a genius with firearms.
CanRay
A lot of Mr. Brownings firearms are still in use (if not PRODUCTION!) today in a variety of forms.

EDIT: It's also a minor plot point in one of the Fallout: New Vegas DLCs.
NiL_FisK_Urd
The MG42 is also still in use by the german (MG3) and austrian army (MG74).
3278
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jan 28 2012, 06:48 AM) *
A lot of Mr. Brownings firearms are still in use (if not PRODUCTION!) today in a variety of forms.

Which is funny, because in many cases, they possess significant flaws compared to their descendants. The 1911, for example, is an incredibly capable pistol, and for many years was my first choice and last choice, but by modern standards, it seems to have been designed by an imbecile. It's needlessly complex and difficult to maintain, and in many cases a tenth as reliable as its modern equivalents. Don't care, still love it, but it's funny that they keep cranking out these guns even though there are "better" ways available.
Snow_Fox
By saying 'the nice people at Browning' we can include the Garand which was designed by a Browning employee and well was amazing. But John Browning was a freaking gneius. For long term guns I can't believe I missed it- the AK-47. There are so many floating around and they have such a long shelf life the russians announced last year they're stopping production, designed in 1947 and still can be seen on the evening news in 2012.

The Browning 1911 had the significant advantage of being enclosed. Combining it's hitting power, rapid fire and quick reload made it the standard for other hand guns to follow. By comparrison with the Webley Fosberry-a semi-automatic pistol it's design kept the moving parts covered so it was harder to jamb, trust me a semi-auto revolver is a real mess for jambing at very little provocation
CanRay
Yeah, all the mechanism was built into the cylinder and jammed in the mud of France's Trenches.

Colt made most of Browning's designs in the USA, BTW.

As for the M1 Garand, that was designed by a fellow named Garand, and is another fine example of a Canadian getting screwed over by the USA. nyahnyah.gif
Snow_Fox
Garand worked for Browning in Connecticut. still it's all a part of the UCAS in 2072
CanRay
John Browning has been long dead by 2050. nyahnyah.gif
Yerameyahu
I'm sure you fans will still be going on about him, though. wink.gif
Sixgun_Sage
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jan 28 2012, 05:36 PM) *
I'm sure you fans will still be going on about him, though. wink.gif


With good reason, God gets his guns from Browning.
CanRay
God made Man, Sam Colt made him equal, John Browning sped up the job.
Wounded Ronin
I've got A1 style handguards on my A2. I *love* the 70s sci fi look to them. It makes me want to go and read some Frank Herbert novel. My plan is to use them till they break, and then put some rails on it so I can finally mount a light onto my rifle.
Snow_Fox
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jan 29 2012, 12:06 PM) *
God made Man, Sam Colt made him equal, John Browning sped up the job.

actually it was hiram maxim, a St louis dentist (I believe) who had the ultimate expression of buld a better mouse trap. He was told if you want to make moneyfind a way to make it easier for the Europeans to kill each other. He invented the Maxim machine gun. the first belt fed heavy MG, and in 1914-18 variations of this killed europeans in the hundreds of thousands.
Snow_Fox
QUOTE (NiL_FisK_Urd @ Jan 28 2012, 03:50 AM) *
The MG42 is also still in use by the german (MG3) and austrian army (MG74).

it must have a substantial upgrade though, in WW2 the rapid rate of fire tended to overheat and warp the barrel. Part of the drill for the weapon team was a rapid switching out of the barrell at set intervals. Allied troops designed tactics based on this flaw- timing rushes for the change out.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012