They do. Though not usually for use as combat weapons. Check out some of the guns people use for competition today. The guns may be based off of an existing design (taking the best part of it and changing what can be improved upon), but they are often totally custom-built to the user's specifications. For example, compare a standard 1911 to this. Or this to pretty much anything else on the market.

In this case, the selectable clip thing has always been a bit out there as it's not a very practical concept for combat firearms (though it has been implemented as a design feature in some). More than probably anything else on the planet, combat firearms are designed with practicality in mind. But again, in this case, that really doesn't matter much.

If that's the case, it's kind of silly. I have a .22 LR revolver that holds 9 rounds.

What rules did you use to create that?

To be throughly honest, I don't even own the canon companion. (Too freakin' expensive for my tastes, anyway.) Instead, I use a nifty program a guy I know sent me. It works well enough, and it's faster than the old-fasioned method.
Also, this is a completely nonstandard gun. (There's a tick-off box for this; it allows you to do things like revolver-based shotguns that don't make much sense.) For a hefty extra fee, you can use almost half the number of bullets commonly found in your average clip.
I will freely admit that I'm using some bizzare house rules I picked up here and there, including those for some super-high-power pistol ammo (the .50 action express ammunition has nearly 3x the total kinetic energy of many shells on the market today) but I'm 30$ richer as a result. (Or was until after I purchased a certian someone a box of overpriced candy, anyway.) Sure, my rules let you create guns that don't exist in real life (and for good reason, too!) but there's no reason why, if you've fixed a large enough gun, that more than 7 bullets are possible. It would be innefficient and bulky, but it would be pretty darn cool nonetheless.

Anyway, let's compare this to, say, a Heckler and Koch 227 SMG.
The HK227 has integrated L2 recoil comphensation. The revolver's got zilch.
The HK227 does 9-10S when fired in burst mode. The revolver does 11M.
The HK227 has a nice, big, easily ejected clip. The revolver requires manual reloading.
The HK227 can be concealed, with difficulty. The revolver is about as concealible as leprosy.
The HK227 can mount smartgun hardware. The revolver...Don't even think about it.
The HK227 can mow down oponents with impunity; a revolver's semi-auto action will require it to be reloaded every 2-3 combat turns (even with 12 bullets).
The HK227 can be fitted with a sight. With a revolver, forget about it.
Aside from the benifits pertaining to durability and simplicity (you can drop it in whatever, and it'll still work fine when you take it out providing you wash out the debris) the revolver is a decidedly inferior weapon. Although it's cool (and very, very big) your PCs have little or no incentive to use it.

So, I would like to ask: What's wrong with a little unrealisim if it still leaves the PC behind a smartgun-toting gunbunny in terms of firepower? (Actually, I doubt there's a pistol that's that awful)

So, if I can say it once, I'll say it a million times:
The rules are [u]guidelines, not lalws. [/i]
EDIT:
Okay, I'll admit it, I was told that this program was kosher. Apparently, that button was left as an option for loopy GM's like me to make insane weapons for their PCs. However, with a concealibility of 2, this weapon is still a piece of crap unless you're a physad with no initiative enhancement. (And even then, it's not very good.)

Also, I yoinked the .50 AA rules from a PDF someone gave me on a floppy. Considering the 2x cost multiplier I impose, and the fact that you're looking at a good 30% more power than most ammo listed in my "big list of real-life ammunition," the +1 to power is more than fair.

You might want to check out the rules for Attunement in SotA64, but of course, that would require you to actually read another book. Do you own, or have access to any Shadowrun books?

Wrong. His will actually hit a target, what, with his +0 recoil modifier even in FA.

But no, it's a finely balanced piece of machinery. I think the designers should introduce it just as written into the game, 'cause it's so awesome. Oh, and others are right -- that neglible weight difference is a huge balancing factor, too. It's going to come up all the time. Especially since it only has +1 power over all the other assault rifles in the game, and nothing else about it is special in any way whatsoever compared to other stock models. Excellent job. <nodnodnod>

Now if only they would add in that equally-not-unbalancing-in-any-way-whatsoever electronic recoil compensation thingy I've seen around before -- the one that lets you get like a full 10+ points of recoil compensation on just about any firearm -- well, that would be fantastic. Mmhmm. Here's to hoping.

Agreed. So, if By the rules the weapon can be built, how does that make the weapon "munchkin"? It's not even like the design is outrageous. A minigun with a bayonet and underbarrel grappling gun. Now, that's a bit ridiculous. I could see that being munchkin. Not Hunter's idea.

Now there's an idea. What about suppressors?

Once again, far be it from me to try and teach you anything that might benefit your understanding of things that actually exist in the world you inhabit, but I've said it before, and as often as you keep bringing it up I'll say it again: If a system exists in reality that allows a person to put 10 rounds of fully-automatic fire inside of four inches at 25 meters (18 rounds inside of six inches), it should most definitely exist in this game we call Shadowrun.

US Patent 5379677
US Patent 5713150
US Patent 5770814

The version in patent 5379677 is detailed The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons, 5th Edition. ISBN 0-87341-778-X.

Now, if you think that makes everything totally unfair in your game, that's fine. Don't use it. No one is forcing you to accept it. In fact, it wasn't even a factor in the conversation until you found it necessary to bring up something else to complain about. Please, spare us all the stomping around and whining (yes, you're whining again) about how things "ruin game balance" when the balance of the game most definitely cannot be assessed by a person who has nothing to do with the particular game in question.

The Grifter:

It's been done--many years ago, in fact.

According to J. David Truby's SILENCERS, SNIPERS, AND ASSASSINS (Copyright © 1972 by Paladin Press), pages 144--146, the firm of Sionics, Inc. (later Military Armaments Corporation) developed such a device for the GE M-134 7.62mm Miniguns carried by helicopter gunships and the AC-47 (a/k/a "Spooky" or "Dragonship" ; radio callsign "Puff the Magic Dragon") fire-support aircraft.

...Although hardly in the area of small arms, the 7.62mm Minigun, also known as the successor to the Gatling gun, has been fitted and tested with noise suppressors designed by Sionics (now Military Armaments Corporation). As with most military tests, these were prompted by problems in the field. It seems that the fantastic rate of fire from these guns, which nears 7000 rounds per minute, was creating a fire hazard on the helicopter's aluminum skin. In addition, the drumming cacaphony of these guns firing, which is so loud and fast that individual reports cannot be heard and the sound is just like a thundering roar, was making radio communication within the ship a real problem. I {the author} talked with a former pilot who flew the C-47A (sic), which is an old C-47 fitted with three minigun systems and used to circle a target and rain down a smashing fist of gunfire on the ground below. He said that the sound of the guns totally obliterated any radio communication during action. The obvious answer was a silencer which would suppress heat as well as noise.
Sionics came to the rescue in October 1968, and the silencer tests for these mighty guns were reported in January 1969. Initial tests were conducted at Underhill Firing Range using the Sionics suppressor as compared to the plain barrel and the General Electric Flash Suppressor (GE developed the Minigun concept).
Test results clearly indicated that the Sionics suppressor was a highly effective device for reducing blast pressures, e.g., with the plain barrel, pressure was 50 PSI, while with the silencer, this was cut to 4 PSI. In terms of sound reduction, the silencer cut that nearly in half,....

However, only ONE system--Serial Number 2001--was actually produced.

...According to their data, the massiveness of the suppressor increased torque requirements by nearly 50 percent as well as adding 50 percent to the weight of the 7.62 gun assembly. These are hardly desirable features in an airborne operation.
In addition, the maximum life of the suppressor was about 200 rounds, and the internal heat and gases within the barrel caused the barrel to need relubrication after about 400 rounds. And, after 1000 rounds, there was excessive buildup of copper from bullet jacketing as well as baked-on carbon deposit. However, one documented post-test report has it that GE built a very limited number of their own suppressors for the Minigun. The conclusion of the silenced Minigun idea is not known, but it is doubtful if any have seen combat use.

Silencer technology has improved quite a bit in the last 40 years or so. The Barrett folks even have a suppressor option for their XM-109 25mm Payload Rifle.

Barrett .50-Caliber Rifles

Hope this helps.

--Foreigner

I'm jealous that you get to play at all. RL knocked me out of my game last summer.

No, I'm not suprised in the slightest that some people don't like it. It's not my cup of tea either, and I expressed my opinions on the matter. My problem is not that Funk doesn't like the gun, it's that A) he and a number of other people around here can't appear to see beyond their own noses, and B) he in particular continually goes about expressing his displeasure in a particularly less-than-diplomatic fashion. If it doesn't fit his ideas of the game, it's actively riticuled. When his opinion is challenged, he finds something of mine that is unrelated to the conversation to attack. Not that I haven't had my bad days, but it appears to be a commonly reoccuring theme with old Funk.

HMHVV Hunter, playing a more "superhero" type of game than I would be interested in (which seems to be what Shadowrun is being geared towards anyway), put together a gun, completely by the rules, that seems like it should work just fine for him in his game. While some people appear to think of the gun as "overpowered" or "munchkin", purely by looking at the end result rather than the methods used to obtain the result, I personally don't mind it. I would probably allow something similar stats-wise in my own games, though not for the same reasons.

Now, you can call people "munchkins" if you want, even under the assumption that "munchkin" is a disparaging description of a person who plays "overpowered" campaigns. But seeing as you are totally unaware of how they integrate rules for the rest of the game, all you really accomplish by saying such things is to make youself look like an ass. For example, effectively increasing the power of firearms while disallowing a lot of the more comic-booky elements of the game, like most of the cyberware that turns characters into comic book combat monsters, does not really make for a "munchkin" or "high-powered" campaign. It makes firearms more lethal and as a result, it makes players less apt to get into head-to-head gunfights. It's kind of like the differences between playing Doom 3 and playing Splinter Cell.

True. But in HMHVV Hunter's defense, he never said that no one else in his game would be allowed to use similar weaponry (a villain, perhaps? his henchmen?). On top of that, he is specifically talking about playing a superhero type of campaign. Superheros tend to have weapons and abilities that most people in their world do not. That's the primary reason why I'm bothering to defend his point of view. Sure, he's made a pretty powerful gun here, but quite obviously, he plays the game differently than I do.

It's all in how you play the game.

I wholerheartedly agree.

It is a cool gun - though I too would add melee hardening.

Why not? Throw on a bayonet and you got yourself a decnt close-combat weapon.

This is true, but a totlly crap idea. Even though I see the point is to help with crew communications, and not in a stealth role, this idea is so flawed it hurts.

What's flawed about the idea? The results certainly were underwhelming. A suppressor that can only function for a few hundred rounds when you will likely be firing thousands isn't that workable, but the original idea, and the reasons behind it seemed quite reasonable.

Well, what if I want to have my own personal minigun laser engraved with the name, 'Whisperdeath?' That's really not going to work if I can't some way to make it silent, while keeping it deadly.