Full Version: Suggestions for SR4 Arsenal
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I went around looking for powder weights, but couldn't find any for NATO ammunition in order to calculate recoil for the MP5 and G36. That said, Austere's numbers are pretty good rouch estimates. |
Those figures are not exactly rough estimates, since they come directly from ARMY AMMUNITION DATA SHEETS: SMALL CALIBER AMMUNITION, US Army Technical Manual 43-0001-27.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| The inability to mount stocks on rifles is not intended to imply an absense of stocks on rifles; it's an asinine contrivance intended to imply that rifles already had them and were benefitting from them, but simply recoiled more. Again, with much hope.. |
Exactly.
| QUOTE (maeel) |
| well the only mistake in this argument is that the P90 was developed and produced before the FiveSeven, which is 5 years younger. So as a matter of fact you have a pistol here chambered for an SMG round... |
Right. Now if you can point out a few assault rifle carbines which share ammunition with pistols, we can get back to how assault rifle carbines can be classified as SMGs.
| QUOTE (maeel) |
| if you quote, please do it in a manner that doesn't turn the meaning around. |
It was absolutely not my intention to do that with the quote, and I apologize if my message gives that intention. It is simply my custom to quote as little as possible of the message I'm replying to, especially if it's just above my own message. I'll go back and edit in a longer quote.
My point still stands, however. The force causing the barrel to flip up is the recoil, and since there is no necessary basic design differences between SMGs and ARs, the energy and the impulse of the recoil are the best ways to measure objectively the difference in muzzle rise one is likely to experience when switching from SMGs to ARs or vice versa.
| QUOTE (maeel) |
| And there precisely is the problem, because SR3 rules dont' allow a stock, no matter the kind, for ARs.... |
| QUOTE (SR3 (Corrected Ninth Printing) @ 277) |
| Some rifles come with rigid shoulder stocks, others with folding stocks. Neither affect recoil. [...] FN HAR: [...] It comes with an integral folding stock [...] |
You are correct in that the Firearm Design and Modification rules don't allow you to add a stock to any rifle, but that's because the rules assume a rifle always has a stock (rigid or folding), but they simply recoil more than weapons which don't aren't assumed to have a stock, and thus there is no Recoil Compensation bonus for that (omni-present) stock.
| QUOTE (maeel) |
| Besides, we are off topic... if you want to discuss this any further, please open a thread for it... |
I will not further derail the thread, I am simply replying to your arguments here.
I've heard the term subcarbine used to talk about the severely chopped down assault rifles you're starting to see a lot more of these days. See:
http://www.colt.com/law/m4commando.asp
for a good picture.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing rules for carbines and subcarbines - both are becoming increasingly popular with SWAT and special forces types. The M4 and XM177/M4 Commando are practically universal among the "contractors" in Iraq when I see them. Something with the damage and armor penetration of an assault rifle, but a lot more concealable and portable.
http://www.colt.com/law/m4commando.asp
for a good picture.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing rules for carbines and subcarbines - both are becoming increasingly popular with SWAT and special forces types. The M4 and XM177/M4 Commando are practically universal among the "contractors" in Iraq when I see them. Something with the damage and armor penetration of an assault rifle, but a lot more concealable and portable.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) | ||
Or, alternatively, "A Thompson M1 SMG with lots of plastic crap tacked on".  |
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) | ||
All miniguns I am aware of fire at the very instant you depress the trigger. Because of that fact alone the "noise signature" is totally insignificant -- the first shots will quite effectively drown it out @ about 150-155dB vs. less than 90. Likewise the very first shots will already happen at a very decent RoF -- I've seen 0.4 seconds quoted as the time it takes for the M61 Vulcan to get up to full speed (4000 or 6000rpm), and in that 0.4 seconds it will already have fired something like 15-20 rounds, which means an average RoF of about 2000-3000rpm over the first 0.4 seconds and then 4000-6000rpm after that. And that's a 20mm cannon, a 7.62mm vehicle-mounted minigun (such as the M134) should accelerate quite a bit faster. I absolutely am not supporting the use of man-portable miniguns. There are plenty of other downsides, which I've went through before, at least in this thread. As for MetalStorm, reloading is not the only problem it has. Accuracy will be pretty much crap, and the external ballistics of the first round fired out of the tube will be wildly different from that of the last round. If there's a jam or other problem, at the very least you have one whole tube which must be replaced before it can fire. Also, in calibers around 20mm to 30mm, it would be just too big to be mounted on helicopters, fighters or other smaller aircraft for ground attack/aerial combat. Still, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch that MetalStorm-like weapons would largely replace minigun-based shipboard (and possibly also some static and mobile ground-based) close air defence systems. |
Notice I said at a worthwhile cyclic rate. I am aware of the fact the weapons can fire immediately.
As for the spool up on a vehicle mounted weapon, remember they are using an APU or direct engine power to spool the weapon up. man portable relies on a battery. Not quite the same output.
As for the rate of fire at the onset, why not just carry the above mentioned MG3 or some simulacrum as it will have the same effect.
| QUOTE (Eddie Furious) |
| Notice I said at a worthwhile cyclic rate. I am aware of the fact the weapons can fire immediately. |
I did indeed notice that, but then I started wondering about it in the context of the "noise signature" bit, so I decided to play safe. Also, I would consider the less than 0.1 second pause you'd get even between the very first shots a "worthwhile cyclic rate", since it's representative of 600rpm. 600rpm for 0.2 seconds, 2000rpm for 0.2 seconds, 4000rpm thereafter seems worthwhile to me, but I'll admit that if your main concern is CQB or a similar tactical setting where immediate reactions and the first shots are likely to count it just might make a difference. Of course, a much greater difference in those settings is likely to be made by the massive bulk of the weapon and the gear necessary to use it properly.
| QUOTE (Eddie Furious) |
| As for the spool up on a vehicle mounted weapon, remember they are using an APU or direct engine power to spool the weapon up. man portable relies on a battery. Not quite the same output. |
Not quite the same mass to rotate either, considering that the M61 weighs 112.5kg compared to ~15kg for the kinds of miniguns we're mostly discussing here. (I realize those are the weights of the whole weapons, but the difference between the weights of the rotating barrel assemblies is likely to be proportionate to that.)
| QUOTE (Eddie Furious) |
| As for the rate of fire at the onset, why not just carry the above mentioned MG3 or some simulacrum as it will have the same effect. |
If you really plan on carrying the weapon into the kinds of situations shadowrunners and law enforcement mostly have to deal with, or really anything but actual warfare over longer distances, I'd actually suggest a LMG in an assault rifle caliber, with a higher cyclic RoF if necessary. Again, I'm absolutely not suggesting that miniguns are worthwhile man-portable weapons -- in fact, as I explained in the thread I linked, I think they are completely useless in that role -- I'm just interested in getting at the facts. I guess the amount of disinformation I've seen re:miniguns over years of inhabiting forums like this has made me a bit hostile, and I apologize for that.
[Edit]Thanks for catching that, Arethusa.
[/Edit]
| QUOTE |
| I did indeed notice that, but then I started wondering about it in the context of the "noise signature" bit, so I decided to play safe. Also, I would consider the less than 0.1 second pause you'd get even between the very first shots a "worthwhile cyclic rate", since it's representative of 600rpm. 600rpm for 0.2 seconds, 2000rpm for 0.2 seconds, 4000rpm thereafter seems worthwhile to me, but I'll admit that if your main concern is CQB or a similar tactical setting where immediate reactions and the first shots are likely to count it just might make a difference. Of course, a much greater difference in those settings is likely to be made by the massive bulk of the weapon and the gear necessary to use it properly. |
Indeed, common is the misconception that the guy with the biggest firearm wins.
| QUOTE |
Not quite the same mass to rotate either, considering that the M61 weighs 112.5kg compared to ~15kg for the kinds of miniguns we're mostly discussing here. (I realize those are the weights of the whole weapons, but the difference between the weights of the rotating barrel assemblies is likely to be proportionate to that.) |
I am also thinking about pushing those rounds from what I would call a less than optimally placed magazine, up the linkless feed and into the weapon. On the vehicular models we see the placement of the magazine very carefully selected to optimize feed and minimize motor strain. But I get the gist of your argument.
| QUOTE |
| If you really plan on carrying the weapon into the kinds of situations shadowrunners and law enforcement mostly have to deal with, or really anything but actual warfare over longer distances, I'd actually suggest a LMG in an assault rifle caliber, with a higher cyclic RoF if necessary. |
The FN Minimi and the Canadian C9 both have adjustable gas regulators (my fave is still the gimpy as far as MGs go). I found them to be quite handy in adverse environments, but the increased rate of fire only chewed through ammo faster.
| QUOTE |
Again, I'm absolutely not suggesting that miniguns are worthwhile man-portable weapons -- in fact, as I explained in the thread I linked, I think they are completely useless in that role -- I'm just interested in getting at the facts. I guess the amount of disinformation I've seen re:miniguns over years of inhabiting forums like this has made me a bit hostile, and I apologize for that. |
Sadly it is what happens when verisimilitude goes the way of the Dodo. I think it comes down to the style of the campaign. However if somebody decided to whip out a "Vindicator" in a campaign I was playing in, I would pack up my crap and go home. Just personal preference, you understand.
I have to admit, I only saw a rotary barrelled weapon in action once, and that was as it was flying by. My time was spent with the more conventional stuff.
can honestly say we have used a mini-gun twice in the campain i play in, both times the recoil was partially negated due to conditions,
first time, vindicator frame was bolted down in the bed of a GMC bulldog, we were being chased and we opened the back doors after the requisite barrel spin-up and ripped the enemy up
second time air nailed the tripod i had for it into the ground as we waited for the ambush patrol to stumble into our hasty ambush
both times most recoil was negated due to the tripods that the gun being on was "nailed" down this both happened durring the maria mucurial protection run if you want to look up the situations.....personally i dont see the vindicator as anything other than that use, vehicle use, or maybe, possibly troll mounted use
first time, vindicator frame was bolted down in the bed of a GMC bulldog, we were being chased and we opened the back doors after the requisite barrel spin-up and ripped the enemy up
second time air nailed the tripod i had for it into the ground as we waited for the ambush patrol to stumble into our hasty ambush
both times most recoil was negated due to the tripods that the gun being on was "nailed" down this both happened durring the maria mucurial protection run if you want to look up the situations.....personally i dont see the vindicator as anything other than that use, vehicle use, or maybe, possibly troll mounted use
IMO you guys go to much against miniguns because it is unrealistic, if u think in game terms, the weapon becomes obsolete
It costs more, has no internal recoil comp., has only one mount, fires only 15 rounds per complex action and requires a spin up. It is no match for HV-LMG, so nobody sane would buy it, so why is it produced?
Make them fast firing, vehicle mounted autocannons and everybody will go for them.....
And coming back on that AR and Shotguns can't mount a stock: i simply want to add that LMGs, MMGs and HMGs may mount them. IMO it doesn't make sense in terms of rules that merely all weapons can be equipped with a stock except for AR and shotguns, because they already have one that doesn't give recoil comp. There are numerous shotguns in reality which don't possess a stock, and some AR can be fired with their stock folded. All of these are not covered by the rules, which doesn't make sense, so i seriously hope that the devs. will change that in the upcoming ARSENAL.
It costs more, has no internal recoil comp., has only one mount, fires only 15 rounds per complex action and requires a spin up. It is no match for HV-LMG, so nobody sane would buy it, so why is it produced?
Make them fast firing, vehicle mounted autocannons and everybody will go for them.....
And coming back on that AR and Shotguns can't mount a stock: i simply want to add that LMGs, MMGs and HMGs may mount them. IMO it doesn't make sense in terms of rules that merely all weapons can be equipped with a stock except for AR and shotguns, because they already have one that doesn't give recoil comp. There are numerous shotguns in reality which don't possess a stock, and some AR can be fired with their stock folded. All of these are not covered by the rules, which doesn't make sense, so i seriously hope that the devs. will change that in the upcoming ARSENAL.
Somehow, I think that all this discussion about miniguns and reality and carbines will just be ignored by the SR4 people, who seem to be focused on smoothing down gameplay entirely and realism not at all. 
I guess that the SR sourcebook writers have never been passionate firearms buffs....Mike Mulvhill's intro to Cannon Companion nonwithstanding.
I guess that the SR sourcebook writers have never been passionate firearms buffs....Mike Mulvhill's intro to Cannon Companion nonwithstanding.
Mike Mulvihill can't tie his shoes. Doesn't count.
So now that I have that out of my system...
I have been thinking about the idea of what I would like to see in Arsenal. I would dare say I would like to see about 2-10 of each type of weapon (general classes, not subtypes, so Pistols, SMGs, Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles etc) dependant upon relative popularity. So more assault rifles and SMGs, but fewer hold out pistols. Maybe add a few stat lines for variants (ala RayGun). Running from something like the good 'ole AK97 & M22/23 all the way up to the latest in integrally suppressed caseless special operations/assault weapons with hi-capacity magazines ala HKG12A4.
Also, a few pictures of the basic weapons at least would be good, they don't have to be big ones, but I find that pics of what you're holding can really fire up the mind's eye during the game.
Maybe use a format similar to (you guessed it) RayGun's wherein you have a picture of the weapon, maybe an image of a variant or two along side it or ghosted over the image and then the stats for the weapon and variants as well as the flavour text below.
Grenades and such as well as a few off the wall items like assault cannons and missile launchers might be cool to add. But could we lay off the assault cannon with a 200 round linkless feed? Those things might be able to carry 5, maybe 10 rounds max, like the XM 109.
I have been thinking about the idea of what I would like to see in Arsenal. I would dare say I would like to see about 2-10 of each type of weapon (general classes, not subtypes, so Pistols, SMGs, Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles etc) dependant upon relative popularity. So more assault rifles and SMGs, but fewer hold out pistols. Maybe add a few stat lines for variants (ala RayGun). Running from something like the good 'ole AK97 & M22/23 all the way up to the latest in integrally suppressed caseless special operations/assault weapons with hi-capacity magazines ala HKG12A4.
Also, a few pictures of the basic weapons at least would be good, they don't have to be big ones, but I find that pics of what you're holding can really fire up the mind's eye during the game.
Maybe use a format similar to (you guessed it) RayGun's wherein you have a picture of the weapon, maybe an image of a variant or two along side it or ghosted over the image and then the stats for the weapon and variants as well as the flavour text below.
Grenades and such as well as a few off the wall items like assault cannons and missile launchers might be cool to add. But could we lay off the assault cannon with a 200 round linkless feed? Those things might be able to carry 5, maybe 10 rounds max, like the XM 109.
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Aug 29 2005, 04:52 AM) |
| Yes, the plastic explosive might... burn? emit unhealthy fumes? the optronik fuse would stop functioning? |
Do all grenades use plastic explosives? I must say I really don't know anything about explosives.
Plastic explosives are usually detonated with some kind of electrical discharge, if I am not mistaken, but do plastic explosives explode if they're exposed to extreme temperatures? It's obviously [NOT] gunpowder, but is there a point at which they'd explode or do they absolutely require an electrical discharge?
(Don't mean to hijack the thread. Just a bit curious.)
[EDIT: Realized I had forgotten a very important word. I meant that plastic explosives are obviously more stable than the good old black gunpowder, but I was wondering how more so.]
Plastic explosives do not detonate from electrical discharge, they detonate in response to heat and pressure (but not either individually). Blasting caps detonate in response to electrical discharge.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Triggerz @ Aug 30 2005, 08:36 PM) | ||
Do all grenades use plastic explosives? I must say I really don't know anything about explosives. Plastic explosives are usually detonated with some kind of electrical discharge, if I am not mistaken, but do plastic explosives explode if they're exposed to extreme temperatures? It's obviously gunpowder, but is there a point at which they'd explode or do they absolutely require an electrical discharge? (Don't mean to hijack the thread. Just a bit curious.) |
Current grenades use a primer charge and a bunch of Composition B. Not a plastique, as there's really no call for anything malleable inside a frangible metal shell that just gets thrown.
Kage is correct; plastic explosives detonate from heat and pressure. You can kick a block of C4, and you can burn it (though I'd worry about fumes too, as you noted), but don't ever kick and burn it.
Modern gunpowder does not explode. It simply oxidizes very rapidly. Old black powder was the explosive stuff.
| QUOTE (Triggerz) |
| Plastic explosives are usually detonated with some kind of electrical discharge, if I am not mistaken [...] |
This is a most unfortunate bit of misinformation spread by people who really have no idea how explosives work.
Plastic explosives are mostly very stable. Like TNT, they are used as the main explosive compound of an explosive device, and require a powerful application of heat and pressure to detonate. This heat and pressure is, in most cases, derived from a smaller explosion coming from a percussion primer/blasting cap or another application of a secondary explosive, a less stable explosive which can be set off easier.
In an electric blasting cap, the electric current heats up a resistor, which then ignites the primary explosive. This causes the blasting cap to detonate, which then detonates the secondary (main) explosive, if all goes well. Simply applying an electric current to a chunk of C-4 will detonate it, though I wouldn't completely discount the idea if the discharge is extremely powerful -- in other words, storing C-4 on top of a lightning rod might not be a good idea.
| QUOTE (Triggerz) |
| Do all grenades use plastic explosives? |
No, but the compounds comprising the main explosive charge inside most grenade launcher warheads are about as stable.
| QUOTE (Triggerz) |
| It's obviously gunpowder, but is there a point at which they'd explode or do they absolutely require an electrical discharge? |
"Gunpowder" refers either to black powder, or sometimes to other low explosives used as propellants (composed mostly of nitrocellulose) in firearms.
The main explosive composition inside most grenades would not detonate from only the application of heat. Secondary explosives (especially those commonly used in the military) can be lit on fire and that alone will not detonate them. In a grenade, however, you just need to set off the less stable explosive in the fuze to detonate the whole thing. This might be achieved if you get the internals of the grenade up to several hundred degrees centigrade. Of course, that would pretty much require firing the flamethrower at the weapon itself for quite a while.
[Edit]That should teach me not to start writing a reply, then go... uhh... do other stuff, and only then finish it.[/Edit]
[Edit #2]Got primary and secondary explosives backwards. I blame it on it having been 5AM my time.[/Edit #2]
Thanks a lot, guys! You obviously know your stuff. I realized I had forgotten a most important "not" in my last post. I edited it in for clarity. Now, back to your regularly scheduled broadcast. 
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Simply applying an electric current to a chunk of C-4 will detonate it, though I wouldn't completely discount the idea if the discharge is extremely powerful -- in other words, storing C-4 on top of a lightning rod might not be a good idea. |
Since lightning creates a not inconsiderable pressure wave (thunder), it is reasonable to assume that at some level it will offer enough heat and pressure to detonate the stuff. Whether or not natural lightning would produce this I have no idea.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 30 2005, 10:28 PM) | ||
Since lightning creates a not inconsiderable pressure wave (thunder), it is reasonable to assume that at some level it will offer enough heat and pressure to detonate the stuff. Whether or not natural lightning would produce this I have no idea. ~J |
Lightning won't generally cause the right heat and shockwave to detonate the Plastic Explosive. Well, at least from what I was told.
You do, however have to worry about that lightning if you have already jammed an electrical detonator into said C-4.
To be honest, I have no idea whether a direct lightning strike could or could not detonate some plastic explosives, so I included that caveat just to be on the safe side.
| QUOTE (Eddie Furious) |
| You do, however have to worry about that lightning if you have already jammed an electrical detonator into said C-4. |
I suppose the risk would increase dramatically if there was any sort of detonator in there. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if most primary explosives were not detonated by direct lightning strikes.
I'm thinking that it wouldn't be a great idea to hang around the lightning strike, whether the C4 detonated or not.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.