Full Version: Using 'older' weapon designs
"rare" is relative. just because you hear about those stories doesn't mean that they constitute a significant fraction of gunshot wounds. the simple fact is that there have been a incalculable number of gunshots that did their job just as intended--you just don't hear about them, because they're unremarkable. you only hear about the 0.00000000000000000001% of the cases which defy expectation.
I think my disbelief is relatively easy to suspend here because as far as I'm concerned, whatever innovations and/or inventions brought about these changes are obviously ones we haven't thought of or invented yet. If they were easy to figure out, they wouldn't be very innovative or inventive.
It's kind of like the Matrix and just about every other technology in the game. They only give as much info as you really need to play the game. They're don't supply schematics or explain the minute details about how everything works because there's just no point in it.
The system works relatively well for what it's for. That's really the only thing that matters to me. I don't need to know what caliber a certain weapon uses, what kind of trigger they have, how many safeties they have, or how the integral gas vent on it works anymore than I need to know what type of engine my Ford Americar has, what type of oil it requires, or what size rims it has on its tires.
What innovation allows a Ruger Super Warhawk to do 10M while an Ares Predator does 9M with the exact same ammunition? I don't know. But I know the Ruger comes in handy in some situations whereas the Ares is good in others. That's the only thing that's important to me.
It's kind of like the Matrix and just about every other technology in the game. They only give as much info as you really need to play the game. They're don't supply schematics or explain the minute details about how everything works because there's just no point in it.
The system works relatively well for what it's for. That's really the only thing that matters to me. I don't need to know what caliber a certain weapon uses, what kind of trigger they have, how many safeties they have, or how the integral gas vent on it works anymore than I need to know what type of engine my Ford Americar has, what type of oil it requires, or what size rims it has on its tires.
What innovation allows a Ruger Super Warhawk to do 10M while an Ares Predator does 9M with the exact same ammunition? I don't know. But I know the Ruger comes in handy in some situations whereas the Ares is good in others. That's the only thing that's important to me.
| QUOTE (Young Freud) |
| ..the bullet penetrated the helmet and rode on the inside of the helmet. |
That is partly what the helmets were designed to do.
| QUOTE |
| I wouldn't bet my life on a game of Russian roulette to prove it, but I think it's just not uncommon. It also looks like it occurs mostly with high-velocity, low weight rounds. |
I would think "not uncommon" would mean that you hear more about them than 60 year old anecdotes. That's pretty far from common.
I mean heck, there's a verifiable story of a man that had an entire railroad spike shot under his jaw out the top of his head and lived. That doesnt make it common.
| QUOTE (Abstruse) |
| A trained person can reload and fire a Civil War-era rifle three times in 10 seconds (I've seen it done), so SS Simple Action reload seems appropriate. This wasn't just some random Civil War reenactor though, this was a Ph.D in American History that wrote several books on 17th-19th century firearms, so you can up it some if you want. One thing to note, however, is that the old rifles were HORRIBLE for aiming. Sure, they were rifled by the time of the Civil War rather than smooth bore, but they were all done more or less by hand and many had uneven rifling, thus causing the bullet to spin funny. That's not even mentioning that many of the ball rounds they used were lop-sided and the edge of a ball in contact with the rifling is MUCH less than the contact of a modern shaped bullet. For the time, though, those were some very accurate guns. If you look at fatality figures for the Revolutionary War (smooth-bore rifles from the British and a mix of smooth-bore and rifled guns from the Colonials) vs. the Civil War, it's just insane. Just some food for thought. The Abstruse One |
Dreyse and Chassepot rifles (1850s era bolt action rifles) claim a 10-12 rnd/minute rate as a maximum so I'd say this gentleman is very well trained with that primitive thing from the colonies
Those weapons where mass-produced similar to Colts Revolvers (Some 1.2 Million weapons in 28 years for the Prussians alone [42000/year], the French produced similar numbers even faster (and the gun was better/faster to shoot)
As for importing RL weapon to Shadowrun - Don't! SR weapons follow a strange logic, one that is written to fit the Game designers Ideas of what combat would be in the game (IIRC there was only one AR in 1stEd). Sure a Burst/FA firing 7S rifle with an 50rnd drum and tripod would be nice. But totally game-braking since you can readily claim the H&K G8 should be down to say 5-6kg loaded. And with licence production of the series still running and well-cared G3-type weapons easily making it to age 30-40, they'll be still around. And the cops will have them...
Birdy
I don't know where this three shots in ten seconds figure is coming from. Unless we're talkinga bout one of the breech loaded rifles that showed up in limited uantity during the civil war, 2-3 shots per minute was about all you could expect form a musket.
| QUOTE |
It's kind of like the Matrix and just about every other technology in the game. They only give as much info as you really need to play the game. They're don't supply schematics or explain the minute details about how everything works because there's just no point in it. |
(joke) Are you sure you don't need the complete history of weapons development in each instance?(/joke)
I agree, as long as the game is internally consistent, it's just a game. The only major stumbling block for me is Lasers. We have better lasers on hand now than they will have in 2053 apparently.
The other problem of course is fan-created material that finds it's way into official material. It's why I wish the CC system of gun creation was more useful, but ah well.
We have better guns now than they will have in 2060 apparently. I don't see why it's so much easier to believe consistently craptacular weapon rules than laser rules.
You think the weapons have gone down hill by 2060? Try looking out oh, say about 40,000 years where the nigh useless guns issued grunts fire depleted deuterium, which if I am not mistaken, is nothing more than hydrogen.
No the weapons are not perfect, nor do they fully reflect what most of us accept as reality. But SR is nowhere near the worst system for weapons out there. In fact it is my system of choice for combat involving firearms.
No the weapons are not perfect, nor do they fully reflect what most of us accept as reality. But SR is nowhere near the worst system for weapons out there. In fact it is my system of choice for combat involving firearms.
| QUOTE (littlesean @ Aug 2 2004, 10:36 PM) |
| You think the weapons have gone down hill by 2060? Try looking out oh, say about 40,000 years where the nigh useless guns issued grunts fire depleted deuterium, which if I am not mistaken, is nothing more than hydrogen. |
i want your time machine and your crack!
| QUOTE (Raygun @ Aug 1 2004, 05:07 PM) |
| Oddly enough, I was getting ready to add Springfield Armory's SOCOM 16 rifle to my site, which seems to be a lot like the type of thing that started the idea for this coversation. |
Oooh. Now that's just cool looking. I think I'll have to go with that model ingame. I can always count on Raygun to add things that are just plain cool.
Fygg, this reference is to WarHammer 40K. It is the description of the basic bolter. They tried to technobabble and botched it badly.
| QUOTE |
| depleted deuterium, which if I am not mistaken, is nothing more than hydrogen. |
Um, wouldn't depleted deuterium be water?
-Albert
Pay no attention to the little man who just bumped a day+ old thread for absolutely no good reason.
No, it's made from water, but littlesean was right. It's hydrogen with an extra neutron or two (forget if it was one or two).
Just one extra nuetron. Duetirium is one proton, one nuetron and one electron. If you were thinking 2 nuetrons thats tritium.
What's depleted about it, though? Is it just hydrogen again?
~J
~J
[Nevermind. It's certainly just pure hydrogen-1.]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.