[Reaver]

Doubt you'll find any 'sixes' on here :p

Lots of 2 and 3s sure

Of the 3 round bursts, the accuracy varies,  but at 100 yards the percentage was something like 70% of 2 round bursts hit the matk with both rounds, while only 53% of 3 round bursts hit with all 3 rounds (can't tell you if that meant just 1 or 2 bullets hit, as the stats are just for all 3 rounds hitting)

After 200 meters... well things get dicey on hitting with the full burst. (40% and 23% for all rounds of the burst hitting)

Interesting to note: the HK G11 assault rifle boasted an amazing 88% total 3 rnd burst hit ratio at 350 meters... mostly due to the 2000 rnds/min cycle rate for burst fire.... compared to 650 rnds/min full auto.... HK claimed the hit ratio was so high due to the last bullet leaving the barrel before the recoil from the first rnd had a chance to impact the accuracy.  Dunno if that is true or not...But when you fire 33 rnds a second,  it makes sense.

Btw, the G11 was discontinued in 1992 as their was no major military buyers for the weapon, or its unique caseless 4.7mm ammo.

[martinchaen]

The G11 is a perfect example of why comparing most modern day weapons to those of 2072 Shadowrun is fairly pointless when all is said and done. Our tech is simply not up to par when compared to SR tech. Can real life examples of technology provide guidelines on how SR4 and SR5 tech might work; yes. Are such examples useful as direct analogies; no. There's too much unac

Bottom line, extreme examples from long to short range based on anecdotal evidence from my own service as an infantry marksman;

After the first year of my service (one year of training in the Shadowrun equivalent of Automatics and Longarms) I could reliably achieve
1. a .5 MOA* group at 1000 meters from a prone, braced position, using a Sako TRG-42 chambered for .338 Sierra MatchKing ammunition with a custom 1-10" twist, 710mm long barrel
* at 100m 1 MOA is a circle with a diameter of 1.047" or 2.908cm. At 1000 meters a.5 MOA group means placing 5 rounds inside of a circle with a diameter of 5.235" or 14.54cm

2. 90% or higher hit rate at 300 meters firing 7.62 x 51mm ammunition from a prone or kneeling, braced position using a bone stock semi/automatic H&K G3 (my rifle was made in 1965, which just goes to show that if you take care of something that's well made it'll last you a long time indeed...)

3. an approximate 40% hit rate on human sized targets at 200 meters firing short, manually controlled bursts of 7.62 x 51mm ammunition from a prone, braced position using a fully-automatic belt-fed Rheinmetall MG-3

4. a stunning 1% hit rate on a human sized target at 50 meters from a standing, unbraced position (in other words, holding the pistol grip in one hand and the bipod in the other) firing a full burst of 200 rounds from the same MG-3

5. an approximate 80% hit rate on moving human sized targets at anywhere from 10 to 30 meters while on the move firing 3-round bursts of 9mm rounds using a stock H&K MP5
The same course with our standard H&K G3 assault rifle resulted in much less accurate fire due to the much higher recoil of the 7.62mm round compared to the nearly insignificant recoil of the 9mm round.

Make of that what you will.

[Sichr]

99.997% of ALL rounds fired from a machine platform (Squad, vehicle, Aerial ) miss their target.

In fact, the only time in history when machine platforms had a better ratio of 8% hits was world war 1, when soldiers used to WALK into machine gun fire! And even then, the hit ratio capped out at around 15%.

Go back 100 years to the boar war, and things get even more interesting.

there was a famous squad of American soldiers... supported by 8 gattling guns (the orginal, recoiless automatic gun!) Each fired off over 15,000 rounds of ammo at a fortified hill.... and only 3 people where hit from the fire... that lasted minutes!


Machine guns have never really been about whole sale slaughter.... but, as said before, its about area denial, cover, and suppression of the enemy. All of which the machine gun does exceedingly well.



As to bursts only represening a single bullet hit, thats actually fairly true. Since Vietnam, many militaries are moving away from automatic weapons and moving to 2 or 3 round burst weapons, as they are more accurate,  and save money on ammo and supplies.... not to mention that usually LESS then 1 round would hit for every 20 fired during Vietnam. (The last time fully auto weapons were mass deployed)

Good to know that all that technological advancement of next 60 years would mean no significant change...

[Reaver]

When you think about it, what REALLY has changed in the last 100 years of firearm technology? Plastics are used.... that's about it. All fire arms still rely on expanding gas to push the bullet. Some improvements in stress handling and recoil fatigue but really, modern guns are fundamentally the same as what was used 100 years ago, just ammo count and rate of fire has changed.

[CanRay]

Last 100-years?  Less reliance on water cooling and the development of the assault rifle.

[martinchaen]

Not to mention leaps and bounds where micronization tech is concerned; barrel rifling, ammunition advancement, optics, and integrated electronics...

Look at the equipment used in WW1 and in Afganistan or Iraq, and tell me we haven't made substantial advancements.

[Reaver]

Not as many as you think to the firearm.

Rifled barrels have been around since the late 1880s.

Ammo has actually dropped in caliber size for the average soldier. (Allows him to carry more ammo easily and really, the .30 caliber was a bit much for dropping people.)

As to optics and electronics, I don't really consider them part of the actual weapon. They are nice add ons for sure, but not required in the actual operation of the weapon system (except for a very few select ones, AKA mini-gun and auto launcher.)

But really, there hasn't been a dramatic change in the basic operation of the firearm in over 100 years.

Yes, ammo capacity and rate of fire have been improved, but these are really just marginal improvements (some experts argue that both of these changes are actually steps backwards. As ammo capacity and rate of fire has increased, general marksmanship has decreased.)

In fact the only weapon system that has seen dramatic changes are in the high end sniper weapons just by militaries around the world. These weapons have dramatically changed from the 5 round bolt action systems used in hunting rifles to exceptionally balanced and highly accurate semi automatic systems.... and usually in calibers not seen in hunting models.

[Sichr]

Well now try to imagine that some weapon supplier, like Ares, asked themselves a question: Why is burst fire less effective than single shots? Why is shooter unable to deliver burst fire with better hit ratio than 3% of fired rounds? HOW WOULD WE HAVE TO DESIGN WEAPON TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN? and than they employ some advanced tactical and material and ergonomic and whatever expert system or AI and create Ares Alpha, which allows soldier to deliver five round burst to 9/10 area of the target. Otherwise you can stick to 20th century FN FAL and have no reason to buy anything new.

[Michael Chandra]

Burst Fire is more effective because it makes clean hits easier.

[Sichr]

Funny
It is meant to deliver more bullets to target. Not to fire more ammo to be able to hit the targwt with one of them. Imagine unmoving target. How would you justify that? Or troll in cq area where he has no placw to dodge, but the burst still deals the damagebof single shot.

[Michael Chandra]

It's meant to hit people more, not hit them with more bullets.

[Reaver]

Well, you can always house rule it that bursts increase damage...

Even though evidence shows that bursts don't actually hit with all rounds...

Personally I never liked the old system as (to me) it made the assumption that the majority of rounds hit the target....

[Reaver]

Sides, warfare has never meant 'killing all the enemy'....

Idealy, you want to wound as many as possible.

A dead soldier needs 3 men to deal with him... 2 carry the body off the field of battle (assuming you win) and 1 to dig the grave.

A wounded soldier takes as many as 30 people to care for him, his cries of pain demoralize his fellow soldiers, and his recovery is a drain of resources (food, fuel, transportation, skilled care, medicine, etc)


I honestly don't think weapon makers (today or in the future) are really worried about increasing the accuracy of FA or BF modes as this would increase the deaths of soldiers, increase an opponent's resources (through not caring for the injured)... and decrease ammo sales :p

[MadBear]

The G11 is a perfect example of why comparing most modern day weapons to those of 2072 Shadowrun is fairly pointless when all is said and done. Our tech is simply not up to par when compared to SR tech. Can real life examples of technology provide guidelines on how SR4 and SR5 tech might work; yes. Are such examples useful as direct analogies; no. There's too much unac

Bottom line, extreme examples from long to short range based on anecdotal evidence from my own service as an infantry marksman;

After the first year of my service (one year of training in the Shadowrun equivalent of Automatics and Longarms) I could reliably achieve
1. a .5 MOA* group at 1000 meters from a prone, braced position, using a Sako TRG-42 chambered for .338 Sierra MatchKing ammunition with a custom 1-10" twist, 710mm long barrel
* at 100m 1 MOA is a circle with a diameter of 1.047" or 2.908cm. At 1000 meters a.5 MOA group means placing 5 rounds inside of a circle with a diameter of 5.235" or 14.54cm

2. 90% or higher hit rate at 300 meters firing 7.62 x 51mm ammunition from a prone or kneeling, braced position using a bone stock semi/automatic H&K G3 (my rifle was made in 1965, which just goes to show that if you take care of something that's well made it'll last you a long time indeed...)

3. an approximate 40% hit rate on human sized targets at 200 meters firing short, manually controlled bursts of 7.62 x 51mm ammunition from a prone, braced position using a fully-automatic belt-fed Rheinmetall MG-3

4. a stunning 1% hit rate on a human sized target at 50 meters from a standing, unbraced position (in other words, holding the pistol grip in one hand and the bipod in the other) firing a full burst of 200 rounds from the same MG-3

5. an approximate 80% hit rate on moving human sized targets at anywhere from 10 to 30 meters while on the move firing 3-round bursts of 9mm rounds using a stock H&K MP5
The same course with our standard H&K G3 assault rifle resulted in much less accurate fire due to the much higher recoil of the 7.62mm round compared to the nearly insignificant recoil of the 9mm round.

Make of that what you will.

Well, at least according to this recoil seems to be he biggest problem with grouping multiple burst rounds on target. Once you account for that, with SR's 'modern' gas vent tech and other advancements, hitting with more than one bullet should be possible.
For easy of play, I'm not going to push my GM for any new house rules, but just for discussion, maybe a +2 DV for each additional round in a Narrow Burst, but double recoil penalties? Either double recoil penalties, then recoil comp applies, or double any uncomped recoil. I would even suggest that a Narrow Burst is only possible for SA Bursts and Short Burst, not Long or FA, and the purpose of those is to cover more area.
That would still mean(getting back on topic) the LMG is less effective in this edition, as it's main use is cover fire. But that's ok too. Sprawl gangers don't need to be toting Ingrams around the Barrens.

[martinchaen]

Recoil, level of movement of both shooter and target, and distance to target will be the biggest factors, as well as any environmental effects that are already adequately accounted for in the rules, in my opinion.

And yes, any machine gun will be more likely to be used for suppressive fire than for placing rounds on targets. If you've never been on the receiving end of a fully automatic weapon sending hot lead your way, I'm sure you can at least begin to imagine how scary that might be.

One thing I feel is lacking from the hard rules is composure; coming under suppressive fire means you take a potentially significant negative dice pool modifier to all actions, but you can still act. If the aim (heh) is to make the LMG more viable, add houserules for requiring composure tests when coming under fire and modify them based on the weapon used. Taking suppressive fire from a heavy machine gun should rattle the most stalwart combatant, unless they're oblivious to danger due to drugs or some other source of recklessness. I think a composure test might adequately reflect this.