Shadowrun

Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: AJBuwalda on (11:26:46/11-13-10)

Title: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (11:26:46/11-13-10)
Why would anybody take a SMG over a assault rifle except for cost or theme?
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Critias on (11:39:19/11-13-10)
Concealability.  Same as in real life.  Their smaller size and compact nature is why they exist, pretty much.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (12:36:34/11-13-10)
The have more firepower than a pistol or machine pistol, but are easier to conceal than an assault rifle.

Like Critias said.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (12:46:52/11-13-10)
Fair enough!
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: KarmaInferno on (00:00:20/11-14-10)
Also, not modeled in Shadowrun, but SMGs are easier to whip around in tight corners than an assault rifle.

If it comes down to legal issues, an SMG will likely get you in SLIGHTLY less trouble than an assault rifle.



-k
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Raventrickster on (10:18:33/11-14-10)
Actually when it comes to the real world there are civilian models of some assault rifles that have the full auto capability removed which are legal to own with the right license.  SMGs on the other hand are completely illegal to the best of my knowledge.  (In both cases in the US, sadly despite living in Canada I seem to know more about US gun law than Canadian).
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (10:24:08/11-14-10)
Actually when it comes to the real world there are civilian models of some assault rifles that have the full auto capability removed which are legal to own with the right license.  SMGs on the other hand are completely illegal to the best of my knowledge.  (In both cases in the US, sadly despite living in Canada I seem to know more about US gun law than Canadian).
Because those tend to be more crazy? ;D
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Critias on (13:21:20/11-14-10)
Actually when it comes to the real world there are civilian models of some assault rifles that have the full auto capability removed which are legal to own with the right license.  SMGs on the other hand are completely illegal to the best of my knowledge.  (In both cases in the US, sadly despite living in Canada I seem to know more about US gun law than Canadian).
Sort of.

Yes, there are all manner of semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one bullet) rifle that are absolutely legal.  No special licenses are needed, since they're just, y'know, an ordinary rifle, media hype aside.  Since the gutters aren't red with blood since the Clintonian assault weapon ban expired, I'm hoping we're able to keep things this way, a few states (California, for instance) notwithstanding.

The issue with civilian versions of things like an HK MP5 or similar isn't always necessarily a legal issue.  The primary issue of legality involved is dealing with specific laws governing "short barreled rifles," or SBRs.  If it's a shoulder fired weapon with a rifled barrel (and even pistol barrels are rifled, nowadays), and the barrel is less than 16" long, it's an SBR.  SBR's are classified as a Title II weapon.  Title II weapons are short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns (in this instance the cutoff is 18"), silencers, and machineguns, which are "weapons that shoot, are designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger." 

None of these are innately illegal, but it's expensive to be allowed to own one (expensive to an everyday citizen with an everyday job, at least).  A special license and -- if this tells you where their real concern lies -- a $200 tax stamp per weapon is required.

Not many guys have the money to burn just for the "gee, whiz!" factor of owning a short barreled rifle.  You'll still see SWAT teams (and ATF squads, naturally) with 'em, but you just don't bump into 'em at the range very often.  Combined with import fees, combined with HK's elitist attitude towards civilian gun owners (for decades they even sold just their handguns to LEO and military groups) and their high prices already, long story short, submachineguns just aren't very common.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Medicineman on (18:12:54/11-14-10)
Akimbo wielding SMGs for the Win

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/Zaxium/SG1-918-0007.jpg

or
http://www.jesusclick.net/files/images/chuck%20norris.jpg

with an Akimbo Dance
Medicineman
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (18:14:59/11-14-10)
Akimbo wielding SMGs for the Win

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/Zaxium/SG1-918-0007.jpg

with an Akimbo Dance
Medicineman
That's pretty bad ass, indeed. Best reason I heard so far ;D
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Kot on (11:02:02/11-15-10)
You can't efficiently fire two P90's. Covering fire, or suppressing fire? Sure. But P90 is not a hip-spray weapon. :P

Th ething is, as KarmaInferno noticed, SMG's are a lot better in close quarters combat. You don't see many SWAT teams with AR's, right? In a tight spot, 75 cm's of gun are always better than 1,5m of gun. Plus, they're lighter, and with the proper ammo (AP rounds of all kind) you can easily reach AR level of firepower vs armor.
SMGs are just versatile and efficient. AR's are used, whenever you need to bring up the Big Buns*, i.e. when you exterminate an insect spirit hive, or fight for your life in an urban warzone.

* I'm not talking about Panthers and stuff like that. Those are 'Oh Crap, Freaking Huge Guns'!
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: John Schmidt on (11:39:04/11-15-10)
The right tool for the right job. Never take a knife to a gun fight.  ;D
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: etherial on (13:04:48/11-15-10)
The right tool for the right job. Never take a knife to a gun fight.  ;D

And the corollary, never take a gun to a knife fight.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (13:11:52/11-15-10)
Unless it's a shotgun.  Then you can club them with it or shoot them, whichever you prefer.

Shotguns solve so many problems.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: FastJack on (13:31:47/11-15-10)
Don't forget grenades.

I miss Dead Monky (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?action=profile;u=334). Where's he gone?
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Angelone on (13:49:01/11-15-10)
I was wondering that myself... I miss my explosives wielding partner. Hope he didn't blow himself up.

Bayonets! :D
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: FastJack on (13:52:05/11-15-10)
Last time he checked in was Oct. 11th... Fired off a PM to him to see if everything's okay.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (15:11:55/11-15-10)
Unless it's a shotgun.  Then you can club them with it or shoot them, whichever you prefer.

Shotguns solve so many problems.
And are real subtle too ;D
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (15:13:06/11-15-10)
If it makes them subtle their pants instead of cutting me, then I'm all for it.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (15:18:37/11-15-10)
If it makes them subtle their pants instead of cutting me, then I'm all for it.
If there was a full-auto, belt-fed buckshot machinegun firing 200 RPM you'd probably get it, right?
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (15:31:58/11-15-10)
Too slow a rate of fire.

The real one fires much faster.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/HK_CAWS.htm (http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/HK_CAWS.htm)
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (15:35:00/11-15-10)
Too slow a rate of fire.

The real one fires much faster.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/HK_CAWS.htm (http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/HK_CAWS.htm)
But its not belt-fed :(
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The Doomed One on (16:38:54/11-15-10)
The right tool for the right job. Never take a knife to a gun fight.  ;D
No, always bring a knife to a gun fight, just don't forget the gun.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: voydangel on (16:42:02/11-15-10)
There are beelt fed shot guns, but because of the jamming frequency of them, they aren't really made for commercial purposes. Mostly home-grown, you can find some videos on youtube.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Critias on (16:58:29/11-15-10)
I'd rather have a pump action I know I can get all eight rounds from when I need 'em than a wiz-bang hojillion round drum-fed monstrosity that's gonna blow up in my face, fail to feed, or otherwise not get the job done.

Because if you can't kill whatever it is with the tremendous short-ranged firepower afforded you by the regular capacity of a standard, plain-jane, shottie...maybe you should be running, anyhow.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: voydangel on (17:16:06/11-15-10)
I'd rather have a pump action I know I can get all eight rounds from when I need 'em than a wiz-bang hojillion round drum-fed monstrosity that's gonna blow up in my face, fail to feed, or otherwise not get the job done.

Because if you can't kill whatever it is with the tremendous short-ranged firepower afforded you by the regular capacity of a standard, plain-jane, shottie...maybe you should be running, anyhow.

Valid point. Running is a greatly overlooked option. I recall a fight between an ork and a troll where the ork realized he was in trouble after 2 rounds. so in the middle of the brawl the ork offered to buy the troll a drink. He accepted. Best way to end a fight imo. lol
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (18:10:52/11-15-10)
I'd rather have a pump action I know I can get all eight rounds from when I need 'em than a wiz-bang hojillion round drum-fed monstrosity that's gonna blow up in my face, fail to feed, or otherwise not get the job done.

Because if you can't kill whatever it is with the tremendous short-ranged firepower afforded you by the regular capacity of a standard, plain-jane, shottie...maybe you should be running, anyhow.

Valid point. Running is a greatly overlooked option. I recall a fight between an ork and a troll where the ork realized he was in trouble after 2 rounds. so in the middle of the brawl the ork offered to buy the troll a drink. He accepted. Best way to end a fight imo. lol
Alcohol... The solution ;D
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Angelone on (18:33:43/11-15-10)
Alcohol sometimes the solution, most of the time the problem.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Kot on (18:49:32/11-15-10)
If it makes them subtle their pants instead of cutting me, then I'm all for it.
If there was a full-auto, belt-fed buckshot machinegun firing 200 RPM you'd probably get it, right?
I loved the FBC-one in Cyberpunk. A gatling-shotgun. With an 150kg ammo pack that they sprayed in 2 minutes... It was in one of the CP games i've played, and lucky me, i was a pilot back then. ;P
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: KarmaInferno on (16:45:47/11-16-10)
Too slow a rate of fire.

The real one fires much faster.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/HK_CAWS.htm (http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/HK_CAWS.htm)
But its not belt-fed :(

You can get drum-fed, at least. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab7rtdGMJpc)   ;D

Also, there are some custom made belt fed shotties out there, but oy do they jam a lot. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX7vwivR6cE)



-k
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: John Schmidt on (04:22:09/11-19-10)
As far as alcohol goes...

Back in college I worked as a bouncer at a bar our saying was, "Instant stupid, just add alcohol."  ;D

The best thing about working at a bar is it really got it out of my system by age 23 I was pretty much done with them. Now...don't get me wrong...it has been said that I still drink like a fish except I don't do it in bars!

Oh...knives are great but again you are talking about close in work. Tactically, keep your options open, a knife, a pistol, an assault rifle, and a grenade or three not a bad idea if you know that trouble is ahead.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Kontact on (02:20:35/11-20-10)
Actually when it comes to the real world there are civilian models of some assault rifles that have the full auto capability removed which are legal to own with the right license.  SMGs on the other hand are completely illegal to the best of my knowledge.  (In both cases in the US, sadly despite living in Canada I seem to know more about US gun law than Canadian).
Sort of.

Yes, there are all manner of semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one bullet) rifle that are absolutely legal.  No special licenses are needed, since they're just, y'know, an ordinary rifle, media hype aside.  Since the gutters aren't red with blood since the Clintonian assault weapon ban expired, I'm hoping we're able to keep things this way, a few states (California, for instance) notwithstanding.

The issue with civilian versions of things like an HK MP5 or similar isn't always necessarily a legal issue.  The primary issue of legality involved is dealing with specific laws governing "short barreled rifles," or SBRs.  If it's a shoulder fired weapon with a rifled barrel (and even pistol barrels are rifled, nowadays), and the barrel is less than 16" long, it's an SBR.  SBR's are classified as a Title II weapon.  Title II weapons are short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns (in this instance the cutoff is 18"), silencers, and machineguns, which are "weapons that shoot, are designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger." 

None of these are innately illegal, but it's expensive to be allowed to own one (expensive to an everyday citizen with an everyday job, at least).  A special license and -- if this tells you where their real concern lies -- a $200 tax stamp per weapon is required.

Not many guys have the money to burn just for the "gee, whiz!" factor of owning a short barreled rifle.  You'll still see SWAT teams (and ATF squads, naturally) with 'em, but you just don't bump into 'em at the range very often.  Combined with import fees, combined with HK's elitist attitude towards civilian gun owners (for decades they even sold just their handguns to LEO and military groups) and their high prices already, long story short, submachineguns just aren't very common.

(http://www.dreadgazebo.com/gunporn/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/ak47.jpg)
"pistol"

As to the why of the SMG, Medicine Man nailed it.  It's a one-handed weapon.  That's its only real benefit over an AR since 2 dice on a conceal test really isn't that big of a concern when you're already at +4.  But, since it's available for one-handed operation, you can rock an Ingram Supermach in each hand and trade long bursts from left to right.  Fire a long burst with your left hand as a simple action, then fire one with your right hand as your next simple action.  Twice the ammo capacity and twice the Recoil compensation for the price of the ambidexterity quality.  It's a lot cheaper, in nuyen and essence, than getting cybergyros and stuffing as much RC as possible into your gun.
Alternately, you can do something like take a stun baton in one hand and a melee hardened SMG in the other, then, if you have to deal with some people up in your business, you can use the two weapon style maneuver, from Arsenal's section on Martial Arts, to parry with the SMG while attacking with the stun baton.  Meanwhile, if you need to still fire at range, you've got your gun in hand.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (09:14:08/11-20-10)
Actually when it comes to the real world there are civilian models of some assault rifles that have the full auto capability removed which are legal to own with the right license.  SMGs on the other hand are completely illegal to the best of my knowledge.  (In both cases in the US, sadly despite living in Canada I seem to know more about US gun law than Canadian).
Sort of.

Yes, there are all manner of semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one bullet) rifle that are absolutely legal.  No special licenses are needed, since they're just, y'know, an ordinary rifle, media hype aside.  Since the gutters aren't red with blood since the Clintonian assault weapon ban expired, I'm hoping we're able to keep things this way, a few states (California, for instance) notwithstanding.

The issue with civilian versions of things like an HK MP5 or similar isn't always necessarily a legal issue.  The primary issue of legality involved is dealing with specific laws governing "short barreled rifles," or SBRs.  If it's a shoulder fired weapon with a rifled barrel (and even pistol barrels are rifled, nowadays), and the barrel is less than 16" long, it's an SBR.  SBR's are classified as a Title II weapon.  Title II weapons are short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns (in this instance the cutoff is 18"), silencers, and machineguns, which are "weapons that shoot, are designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger." 

None of these are innately illegal, but it's expensive to be allowed to own one (expensive to an everyday citizen with an everyday job, at least).  A special license and -- if this tells you where their real concern lies -- a $200 tax stamp per weapon is required.

Not many guys have the money to burn just for the "gee, whiz!" factor of owning a short barreled rifle.  You'll still see SWAT teams (and ATF squads, naturally) with 'em, but you just don't bump into 'em at the range very often.  Combined with import fees, combined with HK's elitist attitude towards civilian gun owners (for decades they even sold just their handguns to LEO and military groups) and their high prices already, long story short, submachineguns just aren't very common.

(http://www.dreadgazebo.com/gunporn/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/ak47.jpg)
"pistol"

As to the why of the SMG, Medicine Man nailed it.  It's a one-handed weapon.  That's its only real benefit over an AR since 2 dice on a conceal test really isn't that big of a concern when you're already at +4.  But, since it's available for one-handed operation, you can rock an Ingram Supermach in each hand and trade long bursts from left to right.  Fire a long burst with your left hand as a simple action, then fire one with your right hand as your next simple action.  Twice the ammo capacity and twice the Recoil compensation for the price of the ambidexterity quality.  It's a lot cheaper, in nuyen and essence, than getting cybergyros and stuffing as much RC as possible into your gun.
Alternately, you can do something like take a stun baton in one hand and a melee hardened SMG in the other, then, if you have to deal with some people up in your business, you can use the two weapon style maneuver, from Arsenal's section on Martial Arts, to parry with the SMG while attacking with the stun baton.  Meanwhile, if you need to still fire at range, you've got your gun in hand.

I must say that I like the idea of Gun Fu with two SMGs is really appealing. Equilibrium style; if you do not know what I'm talking about: GO SEE THAT MOVIE!
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (10:06:39/11-20-10)
Fun movie.  Right up until the ending, which was so trite and cliched it instantly made the movie less fun.

If I watch it again, I'll stop right before the final fight.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (12:46:32/11-20-10)
Fun movie.  Right up until the ending, which was so trite and cliched it instantly made the movie less fun.

If I watch it again, I'll stop right before the final fight.
Did not bother me because I was still having a adrenaline rush ;D
(http://www.equilibriumfans.com/675602-preston1.GIF)
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (14:34:14/11-20-10)
Utterly put on the brakes for me.  I was expecting something deeper than a boss fight at the end.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (19:01:28/11-20-10)
Utterly put on the brakes for me.  I was expecting something deeper than a boss fight at the end.
It is cool that one can pretty much make Gammaton Cleric. The SR4A does open up a hell of alot great options :)
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: KarmaInferno on (03:22:21/11-21-10)
Utterly put on the brakes for me.  I was expecting something deeper than a boss fight at the end.
Huh. I totally expected it.

It may have tried to dress itself up with pseudo-philosophical elements, but ultimately it was a movie about a guy kicking ass.



-k
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (04:28:45/11-21-10)
Utterly put on the brakes for me.  I was expecting something deeper than a boss fight at the end.
Huh. I totally expected it.

It may have tried to dress itself up with pseudo-philosophical elements, but ultimately it was a movie about a guy kicking ass.



-k
And it did that well 8)
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (09:27:21/11-21-10)
Yeah, it had a lot of kick ass in it, but it also had a man's discovery that the soul of humanity is more important than mere safety, and removing the former stripped the latter.

I was expecting a fight at the end, but not the cliche one that was given.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (13:32:20/11-21-10)
Yeah, it had a lot of kick ass in it, but it also had a man's discovery that the soul of humanity is more important than mere safety, and removing the former stripped the latter.

I was expecting a fight at the end, but not the cliche one that was given.
You should have! Everything in this movie screams cheese, that's whats awesome about it ;D
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (09:57:19/11-22-10)
Oh, it had lots of cheese for the fighting, but it also had the message of not trying to regulate art or morality, that such things ultimately do as much or more evil than what they were trying to control.

And then...boss fight against a guy who was utterly cliched to be big bad, and utterly unbelieveable.  I couldn't take the guy seriously as having either uber combat skills or Zanatos level manipulation abilities.  Especially since he was short sighted enough to fight the best combat monster his academy ever produced.  Why not just seal a room and toss a bunch of grenades in after lighting it on fire and filling it with nerve agents?

Just not smart enough to be the big bad, IMO.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (13:31:45/11-22-10)
Oh, it had lots of cheese for the fighting, but it also had the message of not trying to regulate art or morality, that such things ultimately do as much or more evil than what they were trying to control.

And then...boss fight against a guy who was utterly cliched to be big bad, and utterly unbelieveable.  I couldn't take the guy seriously as having either uber combat skills or Zanatos level manipulation abilities.  Especially since he was short sighted enough to fight the best combat monster his academy ever produced.  Why not just seal a room and toss a bunch of grenades in after lighting it on fire and filling it with nerve agents?

Just not smart enough to be the big bad, IMO.
That would have been an awesome ending purely because nobody expects it  8)
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: savaze on (14:58:22/11-22-10)
SMGs have a lot going for them.  Barrel/overall length is a big issue and their size allows for use in confined spaces like inside vehicles.  SMGs can use Rifle/Pistol rounds or hybrid rounds that can due more damage than rifle rounds (and are proving to be just as accurate and sometimes moreso).  Lower weight allows for more accessories meaning less fatigue from extended use.  SMG builders also experiment with newer ideas (e.g. the equivalent to gyro stabilizing) and built in devices because of lower weight and the higher demand for specialized weapons.  Concealable firepower was the mindset behind the SMG (like the Uzi briefcase http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-NCXwPfpDw or the Magpul FMG9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY2EqFzPzn8).  The downside is the range isn't as far as a normal rifle (some SMGs have a greater range than Carbines).  Even though they could be used one handed you wouldn't be able to hit anything because of recoil and fatigue.  Gun Fu is very Hollywood, but isn't anything more than spray and pray or suppression fire.  There is a weapon per hand method, but both weapons are pointing the same way; arm act as the weapons stock (arms locked) and arms crossed at wrists to stabilize.  Of course Shadowrun is different boat and futuristic technology/magic could supercede physics (plus last time I checked Shadowrun used caseless ammunition, so recoil is a non-issue)...

Assault Rifles try to get shorter by adding folding stocks (less accuracy) or shorter barrels (lower muzzel velocity, lower accuracy, less kinetic energy/damage per round due to not burning all the powder in the round), or bullpup configuration (largely unpopular due to generations of "standard configurations" = lack of tactile familiarity, some also argue that bullpup = fragile but that's unproven).

Shotguns are known as the great equalizer in the law enforcement community.  Even if someone's wearing body armor, a 12 gauge deer slug will not only knock them down, but usually it'll knock them out or daze them thoroughly, which gives more than enough time to subdue the individual.  Another thing about shotguns shooting any kind of shot is if you're hit in any extremity, within it's effective range/spread, you're almost guaranteed to lose the limb if you don't die from blood loss or from the invasive nature of the surgery.  Even with medical staff on hand, someone shot in the core body will usually die from internal/external bleeding.  Shotguns are thoroughly limited when it comes to body armor, they just weren't designed to be used against people.  They have been modified nicely to shoot taser rounds, grenades, less-than-lethal rounds, and to become more accurate (deer slugs and rifled barrels).

Every state in the US has different weapon laws.  In AZ, where I live, it's not only legal to own automatic weapons, but it's legal to carry them openly or conceal them.  Sometimes I feel I'm in a Shadowrun game when I see some of the stuff here.  Not to long ago I saw a guy walking down the street carrying a Katana on his hip and a shotgun on his back.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Dahrken on (15:36:10/11-22-10)
plus last time I checked Shadowrun used caseless ammunition, so recoil is a non-issue
I fail to seed how caseless ammo would make recoil irrelevant. You still propel a chunk of metal using high-pressure gases that push it forward while pushing the action and gun backward (that action/reaction thing...), the only thing you remove is case extraction, you still need to cycle a blot or something in order to open the chamber and feed the next round.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (15:40:58/11-22-10)
Quote
Every state in the US has different weapon laws.  In AZ, where I live, it's not only legal to own automatic weapons, but it's legal to carry them openly or conceal them.  Sometimes I feel I'm in a Shadowrun game when I see some of the stuff here.  Not to long ago I saw a guy walking down the street carrying a Katana on his hip and a shotgun on his back.
That's freaking crazy. We have very strict laws on firearms. I want to get a licence when I can afford it though. My love for the CZ 75 PS-01 Phantom is just too great.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Mäx on (15:57:38/11-22-10)
(plus last time I checked Shadowrun used caseless ammunition, so recoil is a non-issue)...
Somebody just failed physic forever.
Caseless ammo sure as frak doesn't remove recoil.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: KarmaInferno on (16:22:25/11-22-10)
Caseless just saves on the brass, and possibly improves the cyclic rate of autofire since there's no extraction of empty shells needed.

Might eliminate some types of jams too.




-k
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: AJBuwalda on (16:31:57/11-22-10)
Caseless just saves on the brass, and possibly improves the cyclic rate of autofire since there's no extraction of empty shells needed.

Might eliminate some types of jams too.




-k
Might create some new jams, though :D
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Kot on (16:39:52/11-22-10)
And those will be tough to remove, i think.
And as for gun law, in Poland it's very strict - no shotguns, or rifles at home, except for hunters (who need to be a part of the organization), getting a handguin license is really tough, and takes ages. So, in the end only criminals and law enforcement agencies have guns. And that's something i'm really okay with, as i'd be dead by now, if guns would be easy to come by. And as it is, i only got my ass kicked, because someone didn't like my face a few times. ;P
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: savaze on (20:22:46/11-22-10)
plus last time I checked Shadowrun used caseless ammunition, so recoil is a non-issue
I fail to seed how caseless ammo would make recoil irrelevant. You still propel a chunk of metal using high-pressure gases that push it forward while pushing the action and gun backward (that action/reaction thing...), the only thing you remove is case extraction, you still need to cycle a blot or something in order to open the chamber and feed the next round.

The caseless ammo I saw, .45 cal, operated more like a miniature rocket and had virtually no recoil (controlled burn), but I suppose if you look at caseless like the old blackpowder variant (explosion) then yes recoil is still there.

Caseless just saves on the brass, and possibly improves the cyclic rate of autofire since there's no extraction of empty shells needed.

Might eliminate some types of jams too.




-k
Might create some new jams, though :D

Caseless ammo doesn't really jam, they misfire and either have to be manually fired or cycled out (or stacked in the barrel = unpredictable results on accuracy).  The biggest factors for misfire (The case acts like protection against several things):
1) Heat - causes cookoffs, meaning the rounds fire by themselves, hopefully they can be chambered fast enough otherwise catastrophic failure = explosion or shooting yourself (recoil/gases from the round are used for chambering rounds, I've only ever seen something similar to bolt action for caseless).  In cased ammo cookoffs happen from the barrel being to hot or burning the ammo, cooking, hense the name. 
2) Weather/Environment - Water is bad and can make he round not fire properly;
3) Static - can cause cookoffs.
4) Shock/bumps/concuss - The rounds break (propellant breaks off).
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Kot on (20:25:10/11-22-10)
What blackpowder? I think you're thinking about muskets. :P
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: savaze on (21:01:58/11-22-10)
What blackpowder? I think you're thinking about muskets. :P

Balckpowder firearms were considered to use caseless ammo, cased ammo came after the invention of the smokeless gunpowder.

What does everyone think of when they think of caseless ammo?
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (23:19:33/11-22-10)
This should help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition)
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: KarmaInferno on (01:40:32/11-23-10)
The caseless ammo I saw, .45 cal, operated more like a miniature rocket and had virtually no recoil (controlled burn), but I suppose if you look at caseless like the old blackpowder variant (explosion) then yes recoil is still there.

What you saw if it had a miniature rocket was a Gyrojet firearm. That's something different than "caseless". Gyrojet ammo actually HAS a metal case containing the propellant, technically - the "case" just gets shot out of the gun along with the bullet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet

Caseless ammo is just regular ammo, without a case. Instead of being held to the bullet with a brass shell, the propellant is mixed with a binding agent so it can be formed into shapes. They otherwise act like normal bullets, including generating the normal amount of recoil.

Modern caseless ammo in development generally doesn't "cook off" much any more, the propellant has been improved to avoid that. In fact, generally caseless ammo doesn't even use regular gunpowder anymore, many of them use a variant of RDX plastic explosive. Static electricity apparently doesn't do much to the current generation of caseless ammo (the primer needs a very specific amperage and voltage to go off), and if tossed in a very hot fire it'll burn instead of explode. And, it's waterproof.

Additionally, most caseless ammo actually has the bullet INSIDE the shaped propellant, so they really can't come apart just by being jostled or bumped. A small initiator charge pushes the bullet out of the propellant block into the barrel, and then the rest of the propellant ignites to push the bullet out of the gun like normal.

Really, the barrier to caseless ammo isn't the technology. It's the cost of changing an entire system to use something different. Unless you can demonstrate a HUGE benefit over cased ammo, most folks aren't going to spend resources to hange the way they've always done things. And while caseless has some advantages, it's not enough to make that justification.



-k
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Mystic on (05:48:10/11-23-10)
Speaking as a real-life law dog, I want to give a personal account of why an SMG over an AR.

Savaze touched on it, let me give some real world experience.

First, they are a lot easier to move in a Close Quarters Battle (CQB) situation. Packed in tightly, wearing body armor and having to move with a squad down a hall or through a door is tough. Also, you do want something with some punch and something that can be brought into play quickly, seconds do count.

Second, penetration. Now, Im not talking in the target, Im talking everything else. This may or may not matter to runners, but LEOs tend to worry that if we miss, who else could be hit. Many officers have gotten in major trouble when their round went through a wall and hit little Suzie or grandma next door. This also has application on a run, you may not want your rounds punching through walls and who knows what else.

Right tools for the right job. SMGs are great for up CQB, Assault rifles are great for distances and penetration.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Kot on (06:04:47/11-23-10)
So, basically - SMGs on regular runs, ARs on the tougher ones, in secluded, high-security areas, or merc jobs.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Mystic on (06:09:54/11-23-10)
So, basically - SMGs on regular runs, ARs on the tougher ones, in secluded, high-security areas, or merc jobs.

Depends on the job. If your "regular" run is inside a corp facility, I would go with an SMG. If the job is where you need something with range and accurace, use and AR.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: savaze on (06:21:01/11-23-10)
This should help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition)

I'll admit that I'm not fluent in caseless ammo and I've hit the wikis a few times for updates.

The caseless ammo I saw, .45 cal, operated more like a miniature rocket and had virtually no recoil (controlled burn), but I suppose if you look at caseless like the old blackpowder variant (explosion) then yes recoil is still there.

What you saw if it had a miniature rocket was a Gyrojet firearm. That's something different than "caseless". Gyrojet ammo actually HAS a metal case containing the propellant, technically - the "case" just gets shot out of the gun along with the bullet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet

Caseless ammo is just regular ammo, without a case. Instead of being held to the bullet with a brass shell, the propellant is mixed with a binding agent so it can be formed into shapes. They otherwise act like normal bullets, including generating the normal amount of recoil.

Modern caseless ammo in development generally doesn't "cook off" much any more, the propellant has been improved to avoid that. In fact, generally caseless ammo doesn't even use regular gunpowder anymore, many of them use a variant of RDX plastic explosive. Static electricity apparently doesn't do much to the current generation of caseless ammo (the primer needs a very specific amperage and voltage to go off), and if tossed in a very hot fire it'll burn instead of explode. And, it's waterproof.

Additionally, most caseless ammo actually has the bullet INSIDE the shaped propellant, so they really can't come apart just by being jostled or bumped. A small initiator charge pushes the bullet out of the propellant block into the barrel, and then the rest of the propellant ignites to push the bullet out of the gun like normal.

Really, the barrier to caseless ammo isn't the technology. It's the cost of changing an entire system to use something different. Unless you can demonstrate a HUGE benefit over cased ammo, most folks aren't going to spend resources to hange the way they've always done things. And while caseless has some advantages, it's not enough to make that justification.



-k

The demo I saw looked exactly like all the caseless ammo pictures I've seen floating around the web, the bullet was completely encased in the propellant.  Though, there does seem to be several varieties of modern caseless ammo.

The Variety *I saw* propelled differently than Cased ammo.  Whereas Cased has an explosion that's guided down a barrel propelling the bullet, without the barrel and such the case and the bullet fly apart ala shrapnel style.  This variety of Caseless had a controlled burn that didn't consume all the fuel within the length of the barrel, but only shortly thereafter.  It seemed to be a hybrid between Caseless and Gyrojet where the propellant travelled with the bullet, but on the outside of the round, or so it was explained.

I wasn't aware of the changes to propellant and the like.  SR doesn't seem to be using that variety, unfortunately.

I know the US Army has purchased a whole slew of caseless ammo weapons (http://www.vincelewis.net/metalstorm.html), but they are configured a bit different than normal.  The barrel exists purely to hold all the rounds, and reloading consist of changing the barrel out.  They got around all the weak-spots by sealing the barrel/magazine.  The guys I know that fired them say the recoil is less than the normal mounted weapons (M-240, Mk-19, M-2) that have a lot lower rate of fire 300-1200 rpm vs. 1 Million rpm.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: Mäx on (06:31:26/11-23-10)
I know the US Army has purchased a whole slew of caseless ammo weapons (http://www.vincelewis.net/metalstorm.html), but they are configured a bit different than normal.  The barrel exists purely to hold all the rounds, and reloading consist of changing the barrel out.  They got around all the weak-spots by sealing the barrel/magazine.  The guys I know that fired them say the recoil is less than the normal mounted weapons (M-240, Mk-19, M-2) that have a lot lower rate of fire 300-1200 rpm vs. 1 Million rpm.
Metalstorm mounted weapons having lower recoil probably has almost nothing to do with the fact it uses caseless ammo and everythink to do with the fact that, them being big multibarreled beasties, they weight a whole lot more then the conventional mounted weapons.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: savaze on (07:00:44/11-23-10)
I know the US Army has purchased a whole slew of caseless ammo weapons (http://www.vincelewis.net/metalstorm.html), but they are configured a bit different than normal.  The barrel exists purely to hold all the rounds, and reloading consist of changing the barrel out.  They got around all the weak-spots by sealing the barrel/magazine.  The guys I know that fired them say the recoil is less than the normal mounted weapons (M-240, Mk-19, M-2) that have a lot lower rate of fire 300-1200 rpm vs. 1 Million rpm.
Metalstorm mounted weapons having lower recoil probably has almost nothing to do with the fact it uses caseless ammo and everythink to do with the fact that, them being big multibarreled beasties, they weight a whole lot more then the conventional mounted weapons.

From what I've been told the M-2 weighs more because the Metal Storm is a one man portable system.  In the US a combat load is roughly 45.5 kilos/100lbs (body armor, personal weapon, ammo, & ruck sack... It should only be a 1/3 of that but that's another story).  The M-2 is a 2-man detail for weapon, tripod, and ammo.

Here's some more caseless links (these are reloadable by round):
Turret: http://www.metalstorm.com/release/AGM2009-2.html
Shotgun: http://www.metalstorm.com/release/AGM2009-3.html
Grenade Launcher: http://www.metalstorm.com/release/AGM2009-1.html
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (11:23:03/11-23-10)
Those are all grenade launchers (except the center one).  They have low recoil because they don't push the round out very hard.

That shotgun doesn't look like it's pushing the round out very hard.  You can see it travel to the target.  It doesn't look like it is a shotgun at all, even.  Just a smaller underbarrel grenade launcher.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: KarmaInferno on (13:44:35/11-23-10)
The Variety *I saw* propelled differently than Cased ammo.  Whereas Cased has an explosion that's guided down a barrel propelling the bullet, without the barrel and such the case and the bullet fly apart ala shrapnel style.  This variety of Caseless had a controlled burn that didn't consume all the fuel within the length of the barrel, but only shortly thereafter.  It seemed to be a hybrid between Caseless and Gyrojet where the propellant travelled with the bullet, but on the outside of the round, or so it was explained.
That SOUNDS like an incendiary or tracer round, actually, not caseless ammo. Both have attached burning material that might look like a rocket exhaust.

The only reason that Gyrojet works is that it HAS a case. For propellant to work effectively it needs confined space. Gyrojets have the confined space contained inside the bullet, with a tiny nozzle in the rear for the burning propellant to shoot out of, pushing the gyrojet round in the other direction.

In regular ammo, cased and caseless, almost all of the "push" is from the expanding gasses inside the confined space of the barrel. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the gasses don't have a lot to push against anymore. Even if you had burning propellant attached to the bullet, it's not going to impart any significant "push" to the bullet after it leaves the barrel - all the energy just scatters into the air.

I wasn't aware of the changes to propellant and the like.  SR doesn't seem to be using that variety, unfortunately.
Yeah, there's a lot of tech stuff that Shadowrun didn't keep up with.

I know the US Army has purchased a whole slew of caseless ammo weapons (http://www.vincelewis.net/metalstorm.html), but they are configured a bit different than normal.  The barrel exists purely to hold all the rounds, and reloading consist of changing the barrel out.  They got around all the weak-spots by sealing the barrel/magazine.  The guys I know that fired them say the recoil is less than the normal mounted weapons (M-240, Mk-19, M-2) that have a lot lower rate of fire 300-1200 rpm vs. 1 Million rpm.
Yeah, the Metalstorm appears in Shadowrun as the "Sakura Fubuki" (cherry blossom storm) firearm.

In real life, it looks like the Metal Storm makers are concentrating on vehicular or mounted scale weapons now - apparently there is no military interest in small arms personal scale versions. I can imagine why - carrying a bunch of tubes of ammo, and having to muzzle or breech load them, is inconvenient compared to regular old magazines.


-k
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: savaze on (15:47:32/11-23-10)
That SOUNDS like an incendiary or tracer round, actually, not caseless ammo. Both have attached burning material that might look like a rocket exhaust.

The only reason that Gyrojet works is that it HAS a case. For propellant to work effectively it needs confined space. Gyrojets have the confined space contained inside the bullet, with a tiny nozzle in the rear for the burning propellant to shoot out of, pushing the gyrojet round in the other direction.

In regular ammo, cased and caseless, almost all of the "push" is from the expanding gasses inside the confined space of the barrel. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the gasses don't have a lot to push against anymore. Even if you had burning propellant attached to the bullet, it's not going to impart any significant "push" to the bullet after it leaves the barrel - all the energy just scatters into the air.

-k

The stuff I saw wasn't a tracer or an incendiary round, I've fired plenty of those in my time and those're cased.  The stuff I saw didn't leave a trail or ignite/burn on contact, it acted like a normal round, just quieter.  I'll bow out on talking about it because I can't find a link or anything to refer you to...

For how you've described caseless (not referring to how Metalstorm bypassed this issue), I wonder about residue and feeding problems.  I would imagine that it would have an increased jamming problem from the rounds attempting to chamber in an ever thicker layer of residue. 

I've got 1500 miles to drive over the next few days, so until Tuesday, adieu.
Title: Re: Gun Question
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on (09:36:09/11-24-10)
Other way around, actually.  The propellant burns pretty cleanly, as I understand it (someone who has used the things can probably give you waaay more information), and without an open breech to let in dirt/debris, it is sealed against outside contamination.