Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wow, I just realized that you can't make an M15
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Wounded Ronin
I was sitting down this evening and decided it would be fun to make a M15 rifle using the firearms customization rules in Cannon Companion.

However, I found out that it's actually impossible to do this for two reasons:
1.) It seems impossible to remove BF mode from any given firearm frame. Although the Full Auto customization on page 82 removes Burst Fire, it only affects pistols or SMGs, apparently.
2.) Getting 20 ammo capacity just from the frame seems to be impossible for the frames that would be appropriate for an M15. But I guess that could probably be remedied by the Extended Clip mod on pg. 81. However, it seems like you'd have to carefully select a base ammo capacity less than 20 rounds for that to work.

Does anyone have an idea on how to get around problem number 1, which seems like the biggest obstacle? Or is it...impossible! (doomed, doomed, dooooomed!)

(It seems like you could achieve 20 round magazine and SA/FA fire modes using the submachinegun frame, but that would be really really inappropriate for a M15.)
Ol' Scratch
1) Use the DP cost but reverse all the other characteristics for adding BF to your frame via the Firing Mode design option.

2) The Improved Ammo Capacity design option is only used with internal magazines (like what many shotguns use) or cylinder-fed weapons. Weapons with the Ammo Type of Clip use the Extended Clip customization option. If you're concerned by the lack of a change in the Concealability the latter option lacks, just follow the same Concealability rules as the Improved Ammo Capacity option. If you're worried because the base Ammo count is higher than what you're looking for, either follow the advice in #1 and apply it to the Extended Clips option, or just lower it to your preference.
Arethusa
Out of curiosity, why an M15?
Clyde
What is an M15?
KarmaInferno
Perhaps he means AR15?


-karma
mfb
no, he meant M15. or, well, he could have. the M15 looks like an M16, but it's chambered in 7.62mm. it has single-shot and full-auto. honestly, with the 7.62mm round, i'd be inclined to classify an M15 as an LMG, not an AR. the M15 was intended for use as a SAW, after all.

info. make sure your pop-up blockers are on.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Arethusa @ Nov 21 2004, 12:58 AM)
Out of curiosity, why an M15?

Because I enjoy throwing in classic guns sometimes to my shadowrun games.

In the past, I would simply arbitrarily write up a set of stats to represent, say, a Grease Gun or something and give it to an NPC.

But I figured it would be cool to design an M15 that theoretically PCs could legally buy/start with.

And yes, I meant M15, not AR15. It wouldn't be hard to make an AR15 with the customization rules, since the AR15 would just have some minor variations on the Assault Rifle frame, probably. Besides, M15s are much cooler. It seems like whenever you talk to a Vietnam Vet who used both the M15 and the old M16A1, they seem to universally think the M15 is a better rifle.

I was rather grappling with the issue on how to port the power and feel of a classic battle rifle to SR.
mfb
i never make battle rifles with the AR frame. i always go with either a sport rifle frame, or an LMG frame.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Daniel E. Watters @ http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html)
The T44E4 and T44E5 rifles are adopted as "US Rifles, 7.62mm M14 and M15." (None of the heavy barrel M15 will ever be produced for issue prior to the M15 being declared obsolete in December 1959.)

Similar notes are included in the World.Guns.Ru page for the M14 ("The M15, a heavy barreled weapon, however, was never brought into production.") and elsewhere. This causes me to wonder how there can possibly be a number of Vietnam veterans who have fired one.

It also seems pretty weird that anyone can simply say the M15 is "better" than the M16A1, since they are so obviously different -- the M15 is basically a SAW, the modernized version of the BAR, while the M16A1 is just an assault rifle. The M15 is definitely not a "classic battle rifle", the M14 is.

Since the M15 was a SAW version with a heavy, quick-change barrel, an integral bipod and other modifications on the M14 to allow for more sustained fire, using the LMG frame might work better in this case. Sport Rifle doesn't work too well, because it only allows SA/BF and not SA/FA -- although the LMG doesn't actually allow SA/FA either.
toturi
You are looking for something that gives SA/BF/FA. Remember BF in SR is not always a fire setting.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (toturi)
Remember BF in SR is not always a fire setting.

Sorry? BF is definitely always a separate mode of fire that the weapon either is or is not capable of. In SR, that is.
Da9iel
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the argument is that one can fire short bursts (with brief trigger pulls) with an M-15 IRL. (Making its IRL modes (SA/?)BF/FA) Forgive my unfamiliarity with the weapon.
Austere Emancipator
Well, yeah, you could say that about every and each weapon capable of fully automatic fire -- apart perhaps from miniguns.

...And looking at the canon weapon lists it hits me that there is not a single SA/FA only small arm. Which makes sense. So, OK, these weapons certainly can and maybe should have SA/BF/FA in SR.

I'm pretty sure by now that Wounded Ronin actually meant an M14, though.
hobgoblin
hmm, i theory you can pull of a BF useing FA in sr to. i think the lowest number of rounds that can be fired in FA is 3 (excluding stuff like running out of ammo). your wasteing a good action tho...
lodestar
This looks like an "Ask Raygun" thread. wink.gif
mfb
there are two significant differences between firing three rounds in BF and three rounds in FA. one, you can't aim and shoot three rounds using FA during a single initiative pass; firing any number of rounds in FA is a complex action. two, you can't call your shot with FA fire.
Shockwave_IIc
And the fact it's a 5 round minium
Austere Emancipator
If you use the logic that any FA-capable weapon can be fired just 3 rounds at a time and thus all FA-capable weapons should automatically have a BF-mode available as well, then it should not require a Switch Mode action to change between firing BF and FA. This is why it's a bit weird that all FA-capable weapons in SR are in fact BF-capable as well.

QUOTE (Shockwave_IIc)
And the fact it's a 5 round minium

No such restriction exists, at least in the parts dealing with Fully Automatic fire in the Combat section of SR3. It does say "Each burst must be at least 3 rounds" or something to that effect, with the exception of mags/belts running short.
Ol' Scratch
Eh, just rationalize it out a bit. Say that action is you setting yourself up so that you can time it just right or something. I dunno. It's too minor of a detail to sweat over, and in this case in particularly it results in little more than complaining about the system just for the sake of complaining about the system. If your logic can't handle it, just assume it takes no action to switch modes.
mfb
eh, it should require some skill to be able to fire a three-round burst on FA. not a lot of skill, sure, but some. if you're looking for a houserule, i'd say the minimum number of rounds you should be able to fire in one burst should be 6-skill, to a minimum of 3. if you wanna roll way, way too many dice, you could even do something like making each FA burst 3 +(1d6/2 -skill), minimum 3.

edited for war story: heh, reminds me of a guy named hicks, back in the army. we were doing a live-fire exercise, defending our position against a field full of pop-up targets at night. hicks was on the SAW, where he was supposed to be firing 3-5 rnd bursts at the bad guys, focusing on the ones at the outer limits of the engagement--around 400 yards. but his firing safety/instructor can hear that he's only firing 2 rounds every time--pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop.

"hicks, what the hell! 3-5 round bursts, man, that's what that weapon's for!"

"but sarge," hicks says, "i only need two rounds to hit them!"

"...carry on!"
Austere Emancipator
Firing exactly 3 rounds every time, that takes skill. Firing about 3, give or take 1, every time takes fuck-all, until you get into 1200+rpm cyclic RoFs. You can certainly do it without putting any effort into "timing it just right".

And no, Doctor Funkenstein, this particular issue will not completely crash my suspension disbelief or anything. It's not as if it works like that in my game anyway. However, it is illogical, and I felt like pointing that out (I originally said it's "a bit weird", which shows about how strongly I feel about it...). Because, well, I like pointing out illogical things, especially when they could be fixed very easily -- in this case either by allowing both BF and FA while in the FA-mode, or by simply removing BF from weapons which in fact do not have a BF-mode (while the latter isn't realistic, it would at least make more sense than the current system).
mfb
yeah, austere, but if you fire 4 rounds, you're not using a simple action anymore. that's an important difference.
Arethusa
So let it be a simple action. Is that seriously a problem?

2-4 rounds at GM discretion for sone firing bursts while in full auto sounds fine to me. You can add in some absurdly time consuming mechanic for determining just how many rounds are fired, but that's obviously a stupid waste of time.
mfb
to me, yeah, it's a problem. SR's crazy-ass initiative system already allows way too much to happen in 3 seconds, as it is. something that allows characters to do even more, in that 3 seconds, is not something i'm probably ever going to subscribe to.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (mfb)
to me, yeah, it's a problem.

Then you would probably be better off removing the BF mode from weapons which don't, in fact, have a BF mode, but are given it only because of the assumption that a FA-capable weapon can be fired in short bursts.
mfb
er, like which? none of the weapons in SR are real. at best, some of them are loosely based on real-life weapons. if an SR weapon has a BF mode, i assume it's because it's got a selector switch that include 3-rnd burst.
Ol' Scratch
Dear god, man! Don't mention that to the gun nuts! It makes 'em psycho! <climbs into the nuclear fallout shelter>
Austere Emancipator
Whichever ones you like. If you don't like grunts being capable of firing 2 short bursts with FA weapons in 3 seconds, you should love the idea of taking the ability completely away from 33-66% of all weapons that currently are capable of it.

The idea that every and each weapon capable of FA has a 3-round burst selector in the world of SR is ridiculous. Of course, in a world where you need such a selector switch to be capable of repeatedly firing short bursts, they might be more common...

Doctor Funkenstein: I'm not one of the people who particularly enjoy porting RL weapons into SR.
mfb
grunts can already do that, with FA, by divvying up their rounds between multiple targets. they have to waste a round per meter doing it, but, eh. i also disagree with your position that some SR weapons with a BF setting are representative of the ability to fire bursts on FA mode. for one, that's not how the system works; for two, i don't think authors of the system knew enough about weapons to allow for that.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (mfb)
i also disagree with your position that some SR weapons with a BF setting are representative of the ability to fire bursts on FA mode.

I do not want to believe the game designers actually thought every weapon capable of FA fire would have an in-built 3-round burst fire mode. But, seeing as how the same people came up with the shotgun shot and choke rules, I guess that's possible. Still doesn't make any sense, though.

Allowing the shooter of a FA weapon to declare, for example, that he's firing 2 bursts of 3 and a burst of 4 at the same target with no additional penalties (or at different targets with the appropriate penalties, as per canon) is a good idea regardless. At that point, I don't really see why allowing those bursts to function exactly like in the BF-mode is a problem.
Ol' Scratch
Out of curiosity, why do they bother with SA/BF/FA modes in some weapons in real life if squeezing off about 3 rounds in FA is such a cakewalk? And why bother not including it in other weapons if the same is true?
Austere Emancipator
Why not? Additional moving parts, complexity of building the weapon, slight extra cost.

Why? Beats me, really. To make sure grunts control their bursts and don't spray all over the walls? US experiences in Vietnam must have seriously changed views about this, what with going from the SA/FA M16A1 to the SA/3 M16A2. I think the M16A2 is the only standard army issue assault rifle in the western world which does not have a FA-mode.
mfb
burst fire is easier to control in combat. in training, sure, anyone can toss off 2-4 rounds, and experienced veterans can probably do it during combat. but most soldiers are not veterans, and their instinct when put into combat with a full-auto weapon is to hold the trigger down until it's empty. at least, that's the thinking behind the change from the M16A1 to the A2, based on lessons learned in vietnam.

edit: and, austere? look at the authors' views on cased and caseless rounds, then look me in the eye and tell me you can really give them that much credit on the burst-fire issue.
Austere Emancipator
The panic-factor. But that cannot be properly enforced through the rules of a pen and paper RPG, and certainly in the case of SR there has been absolutely no effort to do so.
mfb
bah, you post while i edit. and, yeah, i agree--but, really, i don't know of any RPGs that do.
Ol' Scratch
So, the basis behind my question stands. Considering that, why would they bother manufacturing assault rifles that only hardened, experienced combat vets would likely use when the only difference (by the 2060's) is a minor inflation of manufacturing costs in exchange for weapons that can and would instead be used by an entire military force?
Austere Emancipator
I bet some of the more tactics-centered ones do.

What I'm actually saying, though, is that it's a good thing SR doesn't try to enforce the panic-factor. It's best left to the players. Either they can properly play it out when it should be played out, or they'll just be pissed off their pre-teen rambo-characters aren't completely cool-headed in combat. And, since the rules obviously don't play out the panic factor, it shouldn't be used as an argument against allowing short bursts with FA-only weapons.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
assault rifles that only hardened, experienced combat vets would likely use

It's not that simple. Like I said, the M16A2 is pretty much the only standard army issue assault rifle that is not FA-capable. There is a huge number of standard army issue assault rifles that have no built-in burst-fire mode: the Canadian C-7, the British L85A2, the Austrian and Australian Steyr AUG, the Swedish AK5, the Russian AK-74(and others), most issue weapons in ex-Soviet countries, the Singaporean SR-88A, the Finnish RK-95, and many of the M4 and M177 carbines of the US armed forces. And this is by no means a complete list.

Obviously not everyone agrees that the grunts need a BF-mode.
Ol' Scratch
Considering, again, that there is no harm in it beyond a minor hike in manufacturing cost, why bother not including it at all, especially if it'll help increase sales even slightly? It's like getting your feathers ruffled up because your car has five gear speeds instead of four -- the horror!
Austere Emancipator
This is a question that should probably be asked from the people who design all those new weapons without a BF-mode. I'm not an engineer or an expert in gun design, so I can only give you some possible reasons.

Apart from the price hike, you're adding more small moving pieces inside the weapon. Small moving pieces = bad for reliability. IIRC, you also have to modify the bolt of the weapon in a way which several firearm designs don't really agree with.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
It's like getting your feathers ruffled up because your car has five gear speeds instead of four -- the horror!

If you've got a very small engine in a very light vehicle which must still be capable of decent speeds for the highways, it might actually be a good idea to have 4 gear speeds instead of 5. And some might say it's more like the difference between 5 and 8 on your average sedan. I don't have all the answers, so I tend to default to this: It's not as simple as it sounds.
Arethusa
The problem with the SA/FA M16 and M16A1 was that untrained kids got scared and dumped all their ammo at the first bush that looked at 'em funny. The Army's solution? Instead of spending money on training, let's go with burst only.

There's a reason burst fire has fallen seriously out of favor with all military and paramilitary organizations world over. Not only does it cost more, require more maintenance, and cause more problems (an improperly reassembled MP5 with a bust selector nearly killed some SEALs during a training execrise, as I recall, and as a result, the MP5 Navy variant is SA/FA only), but it severly limits you in a firefight. Proper training makes up for the only real upside to a gun with a burst selector, and the US is the only country in the world that still holds onto its Vietnam-stupidity SA/BF M16A2só and with the M8 around the corner, not for much longer.

So, if it bothers you that much that everything just has to have BF on it, shut up shut up shut up. You can hold onto it all you like, but don't try and claim it has anything to do with real life. This is fuckng ridiculous.
Ol' Scratch
Well, yeah, but I imagine that by 2060, the technology allows it to be done with relative ease and with significant reliability.

To assume otherwise, to me at least, would be like expecting manufacturers today to mainly only produce single-action revolvers because they're significantly easier to build with our level of technology and manufacturing capabilities than semi-automatic or even fully-automatic weapons. But since that technology and reliabability is readily available, why not take advantage of it, especially if it will only help to increase sales (even if to just the UCAS military)?
mfb
ritalin much, arethusa?
Arethusa
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Well, yeah, but I imagine that by 2060, the technology allows it to be done with relative ease and with significant reliability.

To assume otherwise, to me at least, would be like expecting manufacturers today to mainly only produce single-action revolvers because they're significantly easier to build with our level of technology and manufacturing capabilities than semi-automatic or even fully-automatic weapons.

And that is a fair assumption, but only to a point. Revolvers, today, are still more reliable than semi automatic pistols, and even if semi automatic pistols are more reliable 60 years from now, they will still be less reliable than revolvers 60 years from now. In the same sense, a burst selector system will always cause more potential problems, even if they are streamlined 60 years from now. In the end it comes down to asking why you'd add one, even if its negative impact on the weapon's reliability is minimal if the system adds nothing to effectiveness of the weapon. Most operators these days don't see any point in limiters; if it's not used, it's just one setting to skip over in the heat of combat, and even if cybernetic links alleviate this problem for the most part, it still remains a superfluous system that adds little to nothing and creates, minor to potentially major problems.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Well, yeah, but I imagine that by 2060, the technology allows it to be done with relative ease and with significant reliability.

You could say the same about the Cased/Caseless crap in canon. I guess developments in smart and ultra-hard-yet-flexible materials could help somewhat here. And once you add a Smartgun system to the weapon you don't even need a separate burst fire enabler. The mechanical system, however, has been refined to be as simple as it's likely to get -- similarly to single action pistols today functioning almost exactly like they did 130 years ago. [And what Arethusa said.]
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
...it still remains a superfluous system that adds little to nothing and creates, minor to potentially major problems.

Only if you roll all ones.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Nov 21 2004, 07:14 AM)
QUOTE (Daniel E. Watters @  [URL=http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html)
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html[/URL]]The T44E4 and T44E5 rifles are adopted as "US Rifles, 7.62mm M14 and M15." (None of the heavy barrel M15 will ever be produced for issue prior to the M15 being declared obsolete in December 1959.)

Similar notes are included in the World.Guns.Ru page for the M14 ("The M15, a heavy barreled weapon, however, was never brought into production.") and elsewhere. This causes me to wonder how there can possibly be a number of Vietnam veterans who have fired one.

It also seems pretty weird that anyone can simply say the M15 is "better" than the M16A1, since they are so obviously different -- the M15 is basically a SAW, the modernized version of the BAR, while the M16A1 is just an assault rifle. The M15 is definitely not a "classic battle rifle", the M14 is.

Since the M15 was a SAW version with a heavy, quick-change barrel, an integral bipod and other modifications on the M14 to allow for more sustained fire, using the LMG frame might work better in this case. Sport Rifle doesn't work too well, because it only allows SA/BF and not SA/FA -- although the LMG doesn't actually allow SA/FA either.

The M15 was used briefly in the beginning of the Vietnam War by a few marines. It was quickly replaced in all branches of the military by the M16A1.

I took a history class on the Vietnam War at Cornell University with a professor named Peterson once, who is himself a Vietnam vet. He actually had a guest speaker who was a marine in Vietnam. The guest speaker said that he used both the M15 and the M16 in Vietnam.

Furthermore, I remember on one of the textbooks for that course there was a photo of some soldiers, and I believe that lying on the ground next to them was a M15.


Now, could I be mistaken and actually be thinking "M14"?

I suppose it's possible, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

So, if I am remembering incorrectly, replace all references above to M15 to "M14". But I'm really pretty sure that the guy actually did say "M15".
mfb
prevailing paradigms change, though, and they're based on groupthink more often than they are on hard facts. hydrostatic shock, for instance, is still bandied about by lots of people, even though the evidence that supposedly supports it is provably inaccurate (that it, it doesn't show what people think it shows). i can easily see some crank gun nut study that "proves" burst-fire is an effective option for some wild-ass reason or another.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
The M15 was used briefly in the beginning of the Vietnam War by a few marines. It was quickly replaced in all branches of the military by the M16A1.

I took a history class on the Vietnam War at Cornell University with a professor named Peterson once, who is himself a Vietnam vet. He actually had a guest speaker who was a marine in Vietnam. The guest speaker said that he used both the M15 and the M16 in Vietnam.

Furthermore, I remember on one of the textbooks for that course there was a photo of some soldiers, and I believe that lying on the ground next to them was a M15.


Now, could I be mistaken and actually be thinking "M14"?

I suppose it's possible, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

So, if I am remembering incorrectly, replace all references above to M15 to "M14". But I'm really pretty sure that the guy actually did say "M15".

M14 seems more likely, as everything you said, with M14 swapped in for M15, is true. The M14 was used in the early days of Vietnam by the marines, and it was eventually replaced by the M16 and eventually the M16A1. Lots of marines used the M14 and then the M16 (incidentally, most tend to swear by the M14). Also, I'm not sure you can really tell the difference between an M15 and an M16 from looking at some shots of soldiers.
Wounded Ronin
Hmm, maybe I did mean M14, then.
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