Bullet to the head ?
Jim Skipper
>
> We usually play low tech games and don't worry too much about hit
> locations. Tonight we're playing a spec ops game and there were many
> lethal shots to the head.
>
> A question came up during play.
>
> A bullet hits the head that does 10 pts of damage. The skull has a DR
> of 2. Does that mean that 8 points gets through to the brain even
> though the brain wasn't targeted? If not, what happens to the damage
> that gets past the skull? Are all head shots assumed to glance off
> the skull unless the brain was actually targeted (or a crit success
> head shot?)
>
> Thoughts. How do you all do this. I'm probably just making it more
> difficult than it has to be.
That is chance for you. Just because someone is not aiming for the
brain, does not mean the brain will not get hit. Ultimately what
happens is up to the GM, but if the dice show 10 points go to the head,
either the target gets his jaw blown off ar he gets a terminal headache.
William H. Stoddard
>
> A bullet hits the head that does 10 pts of damage. The skull has a DR
> of 2. Does that mean that 8 points gets through to the brain even
> though the brain wasn't targeted? If not, what happens to the damage
> that gets past the skull? Are all head shots assumed to glance off
> the skull unless the brain was actually targeted (or a crit success
> head shot?)
>
Pp. 202 and 203 of my copy of the basic book state that a head shot does
not produce special damage results, but critical hits go to the critical
head blow table. This is different from the results of a brain shot. I
take this to mean that a head shot hits part of the head other than the
skull--furrowing a cheek or ear, or smashing the teeth, or something of
that sort. Unless, of course, the critical is a 3, killed instantly--that
could be taken as a brain shot.
--
William H. Stoddard whs...@primenet.net
You'll be sure to find him resting, or a-licking of his thumbs,
Or engaged in doing complicated long division sums.
(T. S. Eliot, "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats")
BOINK!
locations. Tonight we're playing a spec ops game and there were many
lethal shots to the head.
A question came up during play.
A bullet hits the head that does 10 pts of damage. The skull has a DR
of 2. Does that mean that 8 points gets through to the brain even
though the brain wasn't targeted? If not, what happens to the damage
that gets past the skull? Are all head shots assumed to glance off
the skull unless the brain was actually targeted (or a crit success
head shot?)
Thoughts. How do you all do this. I'm probably just making it more
Radnahs
BOINK! wrote:
> We usually play low tech games and don't worry too much about hit
> locations. Tonight we're playing a spec ops game and there were many
> lethal shots to the head.
>
> A question came up during play.
>
> A bullet hits the head that does 10 pts of damage. The skull has a DR
> of 2. Does that mean that 8 points gets through to the brain even
> though the brain wasn't targeted? If not, what happens to the damage
> that gets past the skull? Are all head shots assumed to glance off
> the skull unless the brain was actually targeted (or a crit success
> head shot?)
Okay..... Your head's a big place! Don't confuse your head (facial
area, etc..) with your brain. Your Brain being a small portion of the
head area hence the -2 to hit it. Head being -5 and the Brain being an
additional -2... -7 in total. Read the Hit Location tables again.
Damage done to the head still has a chance to knock out etc.. It's in the
book but will still be pretty nasty and likely kill the target.
> Thoughts. How do you all do this. I'm probably just making it more
> difficult than it has to be.
Yup. hehhe...
Claus Rasmussen
BOINK! skrev i meddelelsen <3685acf9...@news.sound.net>...
>We usually play low tech games and don't worry too much about hit
>locations. Tonight we're playing a spec ops game and there were many
>lethal shots to the head.
>
>A question came up during play.
>
>A bullet hits the head that does 10 pts of damage. The skull has a DR
>of 2. Does that mean that 8 points gets through to the brain even
>though the brain wasn't targeted? If not, what happens to the damage
>that gets past the skull? Are all head shots assumed to glance off
>the skull unless the brain was actually targeted (or a crit success
>head shot?)
>
>difficult than it has to be.
You are mixing up two different hit locations: The Head (-5 to hit) and the
Brain (-7 to hit). There is different rules for how much damage is actually
done if you hit either. Read through the hit location rules again. It'll
probably do the trick.
Wrath
benn beaton
> locations. Tonight we're playing a spec ops game and there were many
> lethal shots to the head.
> A question came up during play.
> A bullet hits the head that does 10 pts of damage. The skull has a DR
> of 2. Does that mean that 8 points gets through to the brain even
> though the brain wasn't targeted? If not, what happens to the damage
> that gets past the skull? Are all head shots assumed to glance off
> the skull unless the brain was actually targeted (or a crit success
> head shot?)
> Thoughts. How do you all do this.
personally i would consider NPC prominence more than the attack
do you need the NPC to live 9/10 the answer is no so let the 8 kill him
but if the Character is needed then consider the following
A bullet could shatter the jaw or face. take out an eye (ala true romance)
make the character bitter or even more nasty.
Blank Dave
Yup a 9mm Migraine
Blank Dave
At this time of year I would like to wish to all Peace on Earth and Good
Will Towards All Men. Too bad that doesn't seem to be catching.
Remember drinking and driving is like using AOL, just plain DUMB!
Thomas Vallejos
>
> We usually play low tech games and don't worry too much about hit
> locations. Tonight we're playing a spec ops game and there were many
> lethal shots to the head.
>
> A question came up during play.
>
> A bullet hits the head that does 10 pts of damage. The skull has a DR
> of 2. Does that mean that 8 points gets through to the brain even
> though the brain wasn't targeted? If not, what happens to the damage
> that gets past the skull? Are all head shots assumed to glance off
> the skull unless the brain was actually targeted (or a crit success
> head shot?)
>
> difficult than it has to be.
OK The target was the head, therefore the brain itself isn't in danger,
the face (cheeks, jaw, nose) however is damaged.
--
Tom Vallejos
email: flying...@earthlink.net
"All right, I'm coming. But remember, this is Chicago. If we crawl into
this thing we might never come out!"
(Ray reluctantly follows Fraser into yet another sewer)
---- From DUE SOUTH episode "The Promise"
DirkLancer
take shots like this and live? For goons and NPCs the thought is obvious: let
their jawbones fall where they may...
But what about PCs? Now with magical healing, you can justify a PC getting
his jaw shot through and being fine after a little Major Healing.
But in a realistic campaign set in a modern TL, should you assign disads to
represent surviving a .44 slug to the head or treat PCs as having many "glacing
head shots that the character can recover from."
Personally, I'd base it on the type of campaign (realistic or cinematic) and
the amount of damage. A crit may always produce a disad, as well as a high
damage shot. But would hate to have a campaign of jawless one eyed heroes...
What would everyone else do?
Claus Rasmussen
DirkLancer skrev i meddelelsen
<19981228020210...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
Hmm...
We're beginning to touch upon on of those subjects: If I can do it, and
nothing seems to stop me (systemwise) why don't I. Like shoot my opponent in
the head to get the damage/knockout bonuses.
The problem to me is this: IMO, it's blatantly callous to shoot someone in
the head! Especially on purpose! Going for all those instant kill locations
will kill your opponent then and there, but what about afterwards? The
policeman who accidentally shoots a gang-member in the head might very
easily earn the severe enmity of the victim's friends. Making it very
difficult - if not actually life-threatening - to do his job on those
particular streets afterwards.
Let's face it. Nobody want's to die, one fact which roleplayers - myself
included - often happily ignore. If you go around making people dead by
shooting their heads off, or stabbing them in the heart with your sword,
squashing their braincases flat with your trusty mace - then you will be in
trouble. Earn a not-so-good reputation. Be up on charges. Be dead yourself.
And that's real answer to the questions above. Oh, sure, make him loose a
level af Attractiveness, give him Migraine, use a variation of the crippling
rules (which might also be in order for severe torso/vitals hits). But there
is also a social side to this, with it's own disadvantages.
Wrath
Sean O'Flaherty
<jski...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>That is chance for you. Just because someone is not aiming for the
>brain, does not mean the brain will not get hit. Ultimately what
>happens is up to the GM, but if the dice show 10 points go to the head,
>either the target gets his jaw blown off ar he gets a terminal headache.
There are to ways hit locations are resoled in GURPS random, were you roll
on a chart to determine were you hit, and called were you say were your
aiming and roll to hit at a penalty determined by were your aiming at. If
you roll randomly you can hit the brain by chance. If you decal were you
aiming for, however, you ether hit the part you were aming for or, with
some exceptions that don't apply here, miss entirely.
Jim Skipper
I generally do not play that way because it does not reflect reality. I
am an ex-Army officer and an ex-cop and have done a lot of shooting (I
am sure I am not the only one). I may aim for the heart (in fact, I
always do), but because I only shoot about 80%, my called heart shots
(vitals) wind up in the heart, lungs, arms, abdomen, throat or head.
When I shoot brain shots (aim between the eyes), my misses hit ears,
jaw, throat torso. And sometimes I miss the silhouette completely.
Based on that, when a player calls a shot and misses the roll, if the
roll is still good enough to hit for an uncalled hit, it can still hit
based on a random roll for a miss location. It similar to the rules for
shooting at an individual in a group. You may miss the individual, but
chances are you might hit somebody in the group.
Jim Skipper
HAL
-1 willpower due to pain
-1 level of attractiveness
-1 level of smell/taste due to nasal cavity problems
+4 IQ to weather sense (grin) "You know, it feels like rain in my nose"
-1 DX if someone takes damage to their brain
-1 HT if someone takes damage to their brain
-1 IQ if someone takes damage to their brain
Also, if you were feeling particularly nasty, you could also give the
Victim of the brainshot some memory problems. This would be playable by
taking points away from a mental skill.
Here are a few "house rules" that I use:
Pain: whenever you are wounded, it is likely the Adrenalin is keeping you
from feeling it too badly. However, once that rush wears off, the pain is
constant. Pain is equal in value to 1/2 your worst wound. Thus, if you
take 6 points of damage, you suffer a -3 to all actions (due to pain)
until you heal up, or take a pain reliever. This pain does not go away
until you are healed. Pain is reduced at a level of -1 per two points
healed.
Crippling saving rolls: according to GURPS, when an area takes enough
damage to be considered crippled, the Player must roll to see of he is
crippled or not - with a roll versus HT to determine (effectively
speaking) if the wound is lingering or crippling. I treat the chest and
head areas as having a pseudo-crippling level equal to HT. If you take
damage to your torso or head in excess of your HT, then you must make a
roll versus Crippling to see if you:
Lose HT
Lose DX
Lose ST
Lose IQ
Gain sickly disadvantage (a HT penalty to saving rolls versus Disease)
and so on.
Story Time:
My players played a game called GURPS AFTERMATH (based upon the Aftermath
scenario) where they got to play themselves. They enjoyed trying to
create characters that were "avatars" of themselves. In any case - the
world suffered a limited nuclear strike along with a biological strike. I
used THE MORROW PROJECT's list of nuclear hits to determine where the
nuclear warheads hit, along with biologicals.
In any case, the players looted from some looters, a Reminton 700 with a
x6 scope mounted on it. They then looted more arms including a Styr that
had been modified to be legally semi-automatic. The players then took to
getting scopes for their rifles and mounting them where they could on
hunting weapons.
As time progressed, and they migrated eastward towards Fort Drum (took
place in western and central New York), the players came into contact with
the military scrounging forces. They consistantly engaged the military
armed with M-16's by shooting the soldier's in the head. Soon, the
military took to calling them "the hole in the head gang". As time
progressed, the players became the object of a vicious anti-sniper unit
that eventually killed one, and drove the players away from the area.
Thereupon, the game came to a halt (no fun realizing that you could lose
"yourself" in those kinds of games <Grin>).
Point is, if players begin to use specialized tactics, so too will your
enemy. My players were shocked when they realized they were being pitted
against Vietnam Veterans (aging though they were) and knew they they were
outgunned by people using grenade launchers, Helicopters, and sniper
trained teams. They were heart broke when a group of their supporters
were slaughtered by the military for harboring terrorists.
I think the best moment in the game came when they confronted a group of
military forces who where killing on sight, anyone who crossed the kill
zone that kept the plague areas separated from the non-plague areas. When
confronted by the players about killing innocent and helpless civilians,
the men replied "I have a wife and three kids at home who have not caught
the plague. What would you have me do, welcome potential killers into my
home?
It was then, that my players realized that in this situation, the army
wasn't the "bad" guy, they were. <grin>.
Hal
EricBSmith
news:19981228231828...@ng37.aol.com...
>I just use blow through. If enough damage hits the face, I apply the skulls
DR
>to the shot,a nd if anything gets past that it whacks into the brain.
That's not very realistic. There are lots of ways to hit the head without
damaging the brain. For instance, a shot from the side could hit one cheek,
go through the nasal and/or oral cavities, and exit through the other cheek.
The head only holds the brain, it isn't all brain. In fact, many people who
get hit in the head never suffer any "brain damage".
EricBSmith
@earthlink.net
"The laws of nature are not open to negotiation."
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent. When
they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now
they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
Mario Tani
BOINK! written:
>We usually play low tech games and don't worry too much about hit
>locations. Tonight we're playing a spec ops game and there were many
>lethal shots to the head.
>
>A question came up during play.
>
>A bullet hits the head that does 10 pts of damage. The skull has a DR
>of 2. Does that mean that 8 points gets through to the brain even
>though the brain wasn't targeted? If not, what happens to the damage
>that gets past the skull? Are all head shots assumed to glance off
>the skull unless the brain was actually targeted (or a crit success
>head shot?)
Dear BOINK!,
To solve all the things you have to divide the shots to the head in shots to
the brain and in shoots to the face.
In the GURPS Basic Set this is clearly explained in the table of the hit
location (I can't give you the page as I own the Italian Edition).
As You can easily read the face is targeted at -5 while the brain in
targeted at -7, moreover if you make a crit. to face you roll in a
different table from the rest of the body!
Eventuallly you can hit the brain passing trough an eye-hole in this case i
suggest you to subtract hte 2 points of DMG that the bullet spend in order
to blind the eye and after to subtract other two points to simulate the
Skull's RD. The rest of the DMG follows the normal rule for the hits to the
brain (DMG*4, DMG*4>HT/3=victim is stunned, DMG*4>HT/2=victim is knocked
out!).
Mox Fool
to the shot,a nd if anything gets past that it whacks into the brain.
Tom Nadratowski(Mox...@AOL.com) - NGFFL Owner
"I'd rather have a fast horse for one day, than a jackass all its life" - Red
McCoombs
NKFL - Lansing Galaxy, Ditka Div. Champs
Fantasy Football win percentage, 1997 (rookie year) - .531 (17-15 record)
Dalton Spence
wrote:
> BOINK! wrote:
<snip>
> > A bullet hits the head that does 10 pts of damage. The skull has a DR
> > of 2. Does that mean that 8 points gets through to the brain even
> > though the brain wasn't targeted? If not, what happens to the damage
> > that gets past the skull? Are all head shots assumed to glance off
> > the skull unless the brain was actually targeted (or a crit success
> > head shot?)
> That is chance for you. Just because someone is not aiming for the
> brain, does not mean the brain will not get hit. Ultimately what
> happens is up to the GM, but if the dice show 10 points go to the head,
> either the target gets his jaw blown off ar he gets a terminal headache.
This is why people wear helmets. <G> Which brings me to my question:
what are the DR/PDs of various types of "civilian" armor? I'm not
talking about what a person wears when they expect someone to start
shooting at them, but the kind of protective gear an average citizen
might wear to work (eg. hard hats, safety goggles, face shields,
work gloves, steel toed work boots) or play (eg. motorcycle/sports
helmets, sports padding, face-masks, etc.) that anyone could buy
over-the-counter at any work-wear or sporting goods store. (I have
been thinking about this since I discovered that some motorcycle
helmets are made out of kevlar.)
--
@==================================================@
| Dalton S. Spence, B.Sc. <dalton...@hwcn.org> |
| Home Page: http://www.hwcn.org/~ag775/home.html |
| Family Motto: Virtute Acquiritur Honos |
| Your brother is boggled by the North Pole for |
| the acrobatic ski lift. FNORD! |
@==================================================@
--
Chancespal
> This is why people wear helmets. <G> Which brings me to my question:
> what are the DR/PDs of various types of "civilian" armor? I'm not
> talking about what a person wears when they expect someone to start
> shooting at them, but the kind of protective gear an average citizen
> might wear to work (eg. hard hats, safety goggles, face shields,
> work gloves, steel toed work boots) or play (eg. motorcycle/sports
> helmets, sports padding, face-masks, etc.) that anyone could buy
> over-the-counter at any work-wear or sporting goods store. (I have
> been thinking about this since I discovered that some motorcycle
> helmets are made out of kevlar.)
>
> --
equipment (goggles, hard hats and steel-toed boots) are used to protect
from a very specific type of injury. Goggles for splashing fluids or
small fly debrie, hard hats for small falling objects and electrical
contact and steel-toed boots from crates and things crushing your toes.
None of which would really give you much protection from a bullet or
anything. If you're feeling nice, give them 1DR 0PD if they have such
items. (Steel-toed boots may even give you a +1 damage with kicking).
You can also just say they are protected if any of the above happen
while they are wearing such gear.
For things like welding gloves and kevlar motorcycle helmets I would use
the medival equivilent as protection as they are not really made for
fighting or keeping bullets from ripping through flesh. I would
definitly give a DX penalty if PC's insist on wearing such things all
the time.
Xiphias Gladius
>I've thought about that before too, and look at it this way. Most safty
>equipment (goggles, hard hats and steel-toed boots) are used to protect
>from a very specific type of injury. Goggles for splashing fluids or
>small fly debrie, hard hats for small falling objects and electrical
>contact and steel-toed boots from crates and things crushing your toes.
>None of which would really give you much protection from a bullet or
>anything. If you're feeling nice, give them 1DR 0PD if they have such
>items. (Steel-toed boots may even give you a +1 damage with kicking).
>You can also just say they are protected if any of the above happen
>while they are wearing such gear.
I'd probably give 1 DR for "heavy clothing" like heavy canvas work
overalls, work gloves, or such. Deliberate "protective clothing" might be
around 2 DR. I might give as much as 4 DR for *really* solid boots.
Helmets, I'd say, could be in the 5-10 DR range, but anything even
remotely armor-piercing would go right through them. Hard hats would be
around 3 or 4 DR, I guess. Maybe 2 DR, but you do get to add the skull's
2 DR on above that.
- Ian
--
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
XPLO ERISTOTLE
Just wanted to point out that the steel toe in a good set of
steel-toed boots is VERY sturdy stuff, owing both to its shape
and its composition (that's not sheet metal in there, it's Real
Steel. If you've ever seen that kind of steel flatware that's
seemingly unchangable and indestructable, you know what I mean).
I've seen a steel-toed boot get hit repeatedly with sledgehammer
blows to no effect.
I'd imagine that the steel part would have a DR up around 8 or 9,
or higher; I can't imagine reliably penetrating it with anything
less than a rifle shot, or several hundred pounds of rigid
material (metal shipping container?) falling from at least
several feet up.
Of course, that only applies to the toes. The rest of the boot is
ordinary leather, probably DR 2.
-Xplo
Gregory Loren Hansen
DirkLancer <dirkl...@aol.com> wrote:
>Well, not to add more to the question, but how does everyone judge people who
>take shots like this and live? For goons and NPCs the thought is obvious: let
>their jawbones fall where they may...
>But what about PCs? Now with magical healing, you can justify a PC getting
>his jaw shot through and being fine after a little Major Healing.
>But in a realistic campaign set in a modern TL, should you assign disads to
>represent surviving a .44 slug to the head or treat PCs as having many "glacing
>head shots that the character can recover from."
>Personally, I'd base it on the type of campaign (realistic or cinematic) and
>the amount of damage. A crit may always produce a disad, as well as a high
>damage shot. But would hate to have a campaign of jawless one eyed heroes...
>What would everyone else do?
Be creative with brain damage from brain shots, and cosmetic damage from
face shots! Gross your players out!
--
"Besides, it doesn't take much creativity or courage to figure out that
something which reads 'Danger: Flammable' on the label might be fun to
fool about with." -- Joris van Dorp
Chancespal
> I'd imagine that the steel part would have a DR up around 8 or 9,
> or higher; I can't imagine reliably penetrating it with anything
> less than a rifle shot, or several hundred pounds of rigid
> material (metal shipping container?) falling from at least
> several feet up.
>
> Of course, that only applies to the toes. The rest of the boot is
> ordinary leather, probably DR 2.
>
> -Xplo
That was basicly my point with the steel toed boots. Yes, they are very
protective, but only for a small portion of the foot. Unless you want
to break down hit location table to include things like just the toes or
the heel, then that's cool and you can make the armor value that much
higher. For ease of play I just don't worry about such things. Just
like if a character got hit in the head with a baseball bat, I wouldn't
try to calculate how far his hard hat would fly if he wasn't wearing his
chin strap, nor how much damage would be needed to rolled to break that
strap, and then send it flying.
The only place I could see any of it being of any real use if you were
playing an Aftermath or some other "after the bomb" campaign.
Stephen and Kari Kolmetz
form a group. E-mail me at sek...@bewellnet.com.
Brian Bunin
>or higher; I can't imagine reliably penetrating it with anything
>less than a rifle shot, or several hundred pounds of rigid
>material (metal shipping container?) falling from at least
>several feet up.
>
>Of course, that only applies to the toes. The rest of the boot is
>ordinary leather, probably DR 2.
>
>-Xplo
I'm gonna have to disagree almost all the way around here.
Heavy Leather armor is DR 2 That's for a Boiled Leather Curaiss (sp?) of Bull
hide.
4 DR for ordinary, albeit solid, boots is totally unreasonably.
The thickness of a leather boot is more akin to light leather armor. DR 1.
when you'r considering the DR of things like this just compare them to armor
8 or 9 DR for the THIN steel of a steel toed boot?
A Breastplate is only 6 or 7 DR. and that's a lot thicker than the steel of
your boot.
I believe there's a tendancy to overestimate the protective value of what
we're used to. Partly it's because we aren't used to the kind of abuse we
expect armor to stand up to.
I have fired 7.62 into a Steel I-Beam on the range. I thought I was missing
since the Beam never moved. Looked and saw that every one had passed THRU it
like a knife through butter.
Fire a .22 Long Rifle and watch it go thru 2-3 inches of wood without
stopping.
Fire a 9mm at a car door and watch it go thru BOTH sides of a car.
Take that heavy Leather Biker Jacket and hit it with a proper sword. It will
barely slow down.
Not intentionaly being argumentative, but I do think you're overestimating big
time here......
Protaganis
>I'm gonna have to disagree almost all the way around here.
>Heavy Leather armor is DR 2 That's for a Boiled Leather Curaiss (sp?) of Bull
>
>hide.
>4 DR for ordinary, albeit solid, boots is totally unreasonably.
>The thickness of a leather boot is more akin to light leather armor. DR 1.
>when you'r considering the DR of things like this just compare them to armor
>8 or 9 DR for the THIN steel of a steel toed boot?
>A Breastplate is only 6 or 7 DR. and that's a lot thicker than the steel of
>your boot.
>
>I believe there's a tendancy to overestimate the protective value of what
>we're used to. Partly it's because we aren't used to the kind of abuse we
>expect armor to stand up to.
>I have fired 7.62 into a Steel I-Beam on the range. I thought I was missing
>since the Beam never moved. Looked and saw that every one had passed THRU it
>like a knife through butter.
>Fire a .22 Long Rifle and watch it go thru 2-3 inches of wood without
>stopping.
>Fire a 9mm at a car door and watch it go thru BOTH sides of a car.
>
>Take that heavy Leather Biker Jacket and hit it with a proper sword. It will
>barely slow down.
>
>
>Not intentionaly being argumentative, but I do think you're overestimating
>big
>time here......
Actually a 9mm bullet might be lucky to get to one of the passengers in a car
if it were fired through the door, if it hits a support structure, no way in
hell, if it doesn't, the person closest might get a small cut from the fragment
or even a minor bruise. A 9mm handgun doesn't have the force to punch through a
car door effectively. A 9mm rifle is another story...
Steel girders? That would depend on the type & quality of the steel & what type
of ammo the firer was using. As for the steel in boots, I've seen them take a
9mm round and not get pierced, they were dented severly and if someone had been
wearing them, they would have had 2-3 broken toes but not a bullet hole through
their foot (discounting ricochets).
Yes, this argument has come up in conversation before. But back then we would
usually stop a game and go to the range to solve it...
(What can I say... we wanted to know)
Brian Bunin
>
>Actually a 9mm bullet might be lucky to get to one of the passengers in a car
>if it were fired through the door, if it hits a support structure, no way in
>hell, if it doesn't, the person closest might get a small cut from the fragment
>or even a minor bruise. A 9mm handgun doesn't have the force to punch through a
>car door effectively. A 9mm rifle is another story...
>Steel girders? That would depend on the type & quality of the steel & what type
>of ammo the firer was using. As for the steel in boots, I've seen them take a
>9mm round and not get pierced, they were dented severly and if someone had been
>wearing them, they would have had 2-3 broken toes but not a bullet hole through
>their foot (discounting ricochets).
>
>Yes, this argument has come up in conversation before. But back then we would
>usually stop a game and go to the range to solve it...
>(What can I say... we wanted to know)
Same here. Only it was Morrow Project we were playing then.
We fired 9mm FMJ from a Browning HP-35 into the drivers door of a junker 72
ford LTD from 15 feet. It went clean thru the other side. Remember that a car
is pretty thin sheet steel, even in the 70's. Those pointy 9mm rounds
penetrate quite nicely.
I'll grant you that the 7.62 was Military Issue, but Mil Issue is just Full
Metal Jacket......
James (Jim) Fleming
http://www.accessdenied.net/
There are several GURPS players listed there.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Okay..... Your head's a big place! Don't confuse your head (facial
>area, etc..) with your brain. Your Brain being a small portion of the
>head area hence the -2 to hit it. Head being -5 and the Brain being an
Pulling out my convenient human skull model (real ones being too expensive, of
course), I see that the braincase takes up a signficant portion of the total
skull volume, certainly not a "small portion". The fact that "brain" has a -2
to target (in addition to the head -5) does not mean that it is something
incredibly tiny in proportion to the rest of the skull. The problem is that
"brain" is a special hit location with special game effects and "head" has far
less in the way of special effects. To target the "face" separate from the
"brain" really would be no easier than to target the "brain"--especially since
there is a significant amount of midbrain and hindbrain immediately behind
said "face". A high-velocity projectile would be able to pass through the
"face" and enter the "brain".
Truth be told, it's just another area where the game mechanic has problems
with reality. The prospect of a head shot should be frightening. There is a
real reason that helmets became a common item of solid armor very early on,
like there are real reasons for soldiery to still wear helmets even if they
wear no other armor. The results of a head injury can be remarkably
devastating. If the brain truly were so incredibly difficult to hit with a
sword or arror (pre modern aiming goodies), there would have been no need to
have so much attention given to helmets.
Now, the reason that the mechanic exists as is was explained long ago on the
old Illuminati BBS, if I remember aright. There were two alternatives to
modeling the fact that the human head, by virtue of holding the major sensors
for a human, is very nicely primed to react to oncoming threats, moreso than
any other part of the body. One alternative was to give the head a bonus to
active defenses against attacks that were sensed coming, the other to give it
a higher to hit penalty than surface area indicated. The later was
decided upon.
Just how far will the forces of political dogmatism on any side of the spectrum go for the sake of mindless adherence to ideological stupidity?
Read what's at "http://www.ora.com/people/staff/sierra/flum/index.htm" and find out.
No, that's not my page, mine is at "http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/"
Bryan J. Maloney
>OK The target was the head, therefore the brain itself isn't in danger,
Yes. This is because the brain is not in any way, shape, or form connected to
the head for humans.
ICEMANAT95
should be messy grazes to the scalp that knock them unconscious for a while,
but don;t do anything greater than superficial damage.
Is it realistic? Hell no, but its a game and its supposed to be fun.
Iceman
ICEMANAT95
However, in Spec Ops scenarios, head-shots are unlikely since they are
low-probability hits. Center mass shots are high probability shots that will
likely hit hard enouygh to put the guy down, or at least slow him down enough
that you have time to finish him with a well aimed head shot after you have
engaged the rest of the available targets. You are right though, this is a
clear case of players doing it because they can, rather than tactically
appropriate shot placement.
Iceman
BOINK!
Uh-yep. As the above mentioned player (one of the few times I get to.
Usually the GM) I have to say that the head was the tactically
appropriate target as our m16s couldn't punch through their armor.
They weren't wearing helmets (silly terrorists). This is assuming
we're utilizing DR correctly. It *does* apply to each bullet
individually, right?
Knight
> Uh-yep. As the above mentioned player (one of the few times I get to.
> Usually the GM) I have to say that the head was the tactically
> appropriate target as our m16s couldn't punch through their armor.
> They weren't wearing helmets (silly terrorists). This is assuming
> we're utilizing DR correctly. It *does* apply to each bullet
> individually, right?
Yes, but I can't think of any body armour that would stop an assault
rifle round.....
Bryan J. Maloney
icema...@aol.comhkr (ICEMANAT95) wrote:
Prove that your definition of "fun" is the only valid definition. I've
played in games with lethal head-shots, and I had fun. My characters also
kept their heads down.
Of course, the GM also played the bad-guys as fairly realistic modern
thugs--blazing away like fools with high RoF weapons, while my half-crazy
mountain man laid himself out under cover with his .30-06, just *waiting*
for some stupid city-bred yahoo to come into his cross-hairs.
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Andrew Priestley
Knight wrote:
NIJ certified Class IV armor will take armor piercing .30-06 quite nicely
thank you. I've also seen some reviews of tactical SWAT type vest that
could take a burst from an M60 at about 7 feet. The question is, is it
practical? Typically it is not.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> In article <19990105113759...@ng40.aol.com>,
> icema...@aol.comhkr (ICEMANAT95) wrote:
>
> > Its a game, the PC's should never take head shots in a game. At worst they
> > should be messy grazes to the scalp that knock them unconscious for a while,
> > but don;t do anything greater than superficial damage.
> >
> > Is it realistic? Hell no, but its a game and its supposed to be fun.
>
> Prove that your definition of "fun" is the only valid definition. I've
> played in games with lethal head-shots, and I had fun. My characters also
> kept their heads down.
How do you know there were lethal head shots in the game? Did your character or
one of the other PCs take a hit to the head and die? If no-one in your game ever
did, then how can you say you played in a game that allowed PCs to take lethal
head shots? Again, if a PC in that game ever took a lethal head shot then the
following argument is moot. Many times I have played in games where the Gm told
us that if we did something stupid and got killed, our characters would stay dead,
then when someone did something stupid that should have gotten them killed, the GM
fudged them out of it. Fine, the proclamation forces you to pay attention, but
the GM doesn't have to follow through with it all the way.
>
> Of course, the GM also played the bad-guys as fairly realistic modern
> thugs--blazing away like fools with high RoF weapons, while my half-crazy
> mountain man laid himself out under cover with his .30-06, just *waiting*
> for some stupid city-bred yahoo to come into his cross-hairs.
Depends on the bad-guys. if its your typical gang-banger, for whom a gun is as
much a status symbol as a tool, and who holds a pistol sideways and with his wrist
cocked downward at 20 degrees, then this is accurate, you can't hit the broad side
of a barn shooting like that, but if you are fighting military folks with real
firearms training and tactical movement training...look out.
That's where game abstraction comes in. It smoothes the edges between what the
character knows and what the player knows.
Iceman
Bryan J. Maloney
<and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> How do you know there were lethal head shots in the game? Did your
character or
> one of the other PCs take a hit to the head and die? If no-one in your game
Yes. Another PC did, played by somebody who didn't want to do
duck-and-cover, at least not for his first character...
> head shots? Again, if a PC in that game ever took a lethal head shot then the
> following argument is moot. Many times I have played in games where the Gm
Your argument is moot.
> Depends on the bad-guys. if its your typical gang-banger, for whom a
gun is as
> much a status symbol as a tool, and who holds a pistol sideways and with
his wrist
> cocked downward at 20 degrees, then this is accurate, you can't hit the broad
Yup, that's what they were.
side
> of a barn shooting like that, but if you are fighting military folks with real
> firearms training and tactical movement training...look out.
Military folks? No, we complied most politely when we ran into
professionals. How could we tell? They were very heavily armed and told
us we had the opportunity to put our guns down and talk, should we so
choose.
NEil Phillips
wisdom:
>Depends on the bad-guys. if its your typical gang-banger, for whom a gun is as
>much a status symbol as a tool, and who holds a pistol sideways and with his wrist
>cocked downward at 20 degrees, then this is accurate, you can't hit the broad side
>of a barn shooting like that, but if you are fighting military folks with real
>firearms training and tactical movement training...look out.
I modeled a necro ganger to be holding his gun that way, too :)
Stye is everything..
In GURPS terms, what would be the negative modifier for holding a
pistol sideways?
--
NEil (phil...@gwbbs.net.au)
a.k.a. N-ster...
The opinions expressed in this message are not my own,
but rather are those of Microsoft Corporation.
silveroak
NEil Phillips wrote in message
<3698c627...@news.ade.connect.com.au>...
>Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> saw fit to share the following
>wisdom:
>
>>Depends on the bad-guys. if its your typical gang-banger, for whom a gun
is as
>>much a status symbol as a tool, and who holds a pistol sideways and with
his wrist
>>cocked downward at 20 degrees, then this is accurate, you can't hit the
broad side
>>of a barn shooting like that, but if you are fighting military folks with
real
>>firearms training and tactical movement training...look out.
>
>I modeled a necro ganger to be holding his gun that way, too :)
>Stye is everything..
>
>In GURPS terms, what would be the negative modifier for holding a
>pistol sideways?
I have heard somewhere that this is done to make the recoil easier to
control... of course aiming with the sights becomes impossible, so you might
as well throw away the weapon's accuracy bonus.
Knight
it from somewhere.
Gregory Loren Hansen
Knight <10671...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Why the hell did that sideways grip get popular anyway? Woo must have got
>it from somewhere.
I saw one movie where the guy was holding the pistol in his right hand the
right way, and the one in his left hand sideways, and using both. I
couldn't decide if that sideways pistol made sense under those
circumstances. Two vertical pistols might make sighting down the barrels
more difficult. (If you're shooting two pistols, I assume you're not
using the sights.)
Jim Skipper
> I saw one movie where the guy was holding the pistol in his right hand the
> right way, and the one in his left hand sideways,
<SNIP>
To throw out something from my experience: if you shoot a semi-automatic
pistol from your left hand you occasionally get a hot cartridge ejected
into your face. Turning the ejection port downward will prevent that.
Jim Skipper
Houston TX
jski...@ix.netcom.com
Spm073
Recoil is the rearward movement of the pistol when a shot is fired. THat
movement is controlled by having a strong and stable shooting platform, i.e.
the hand, which is reinforced by the bones of the hands, wrist and forearm,
allowing recoil to be absorbed by the bones of the arm and not the muscles or
the hand alone. The conventional 2handed grip and stance utilize this well
when the arms are extended (lockedout). One handed lockout is harder to
maintain in the conventional pattern of the hand held vertical. A 45 degree
cant solves this problem (putting the hand in a position similar to the one
used when reaching for something). Sighting isnt as hard as it sounds, it just
takes some practice.
NEil Phillips
wisdom:
> I have heard somewhere that this is done to make the recoil easier to
>control... of course aiming with the sights becomes impossible, so you might
>as well throw away the weapon's accuracy bonus.
Is the recoil signifigantly easier to control?
OK, so how about holding the pistol sideways makes you lose the
accuracy bonus, possibly gain a bonus to handle recoil (small, tho),
and possibly give a bonus to Intimidation skill. Also, it could help
to maintain a reputation. Thoughts?
Mark Jones
NEil Phillips wrote:
> "silveroak" <silv...@feist.com> saw fit to share the following
> wisdom:
>
> > I have heard somewhere that this is done to make the recoil easier to
> >control... of course aiming with the sights becomes impossible, so you might
> >as well throw away the weapon's accuracy bonus.
>
> Is the recoil signifigantly easier to control?
>
> OK, so how about holding the pistol sideways makes you lose the
> accuracy bonus, possibly gain a bonus to handle recoil (small, tho),
> and possibly give a bonus to Intimidation skill. Also, it could help
> to maintain a reputation. Thoughts?
If I see some goon holding his pistol sideways while shooting at me, I'll thank
my lucky stars. It means he probably won't hit me except by pure accident.
Almost Certainly Bogus Theory For Sideways Shooting: I *heard* than Israeli
combat consultant for Hollywood started this. The story is that a lot of people
in Israel carry their handguns with no round in the chamber, so that if someone
grabs it and tries to shoot them, it just goes _click_. Of course, the downside
of this is that the weapon's owner must work the slide manually before he can use
it in an emergency. _Supposedly_, there's a technique whereby you work the slide
as you're drawing it, which involves holding the weapon sideways to make that
easier/faster--and if speed is essential, then you just go ahead and shoot with
the gun in that position.
It's almost certainlya completely bogus story.
MY theory: Someone in Hollywood is deliberately teaching gangbangers (very few
of whom actually know much about using firearms correctly) to shoot as
ineffectively as possible by showing them a "cool" (and moronic) affectation.
--
Mark Jones
"The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get
accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to
discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul.
Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the
reality!" - Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943
Mark Jones
Tomansky wrote:
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> > MY theory: Someone in Hollywood is deliberately teaching gangbangers (very few
> > of whom actually know much about using firearms correctly) to shoot as
> > ineffectively as possible by showing them a "cool" (and moronic) affectation.
>
> That style of shooting serves a very useful purpose in film making,
> like having a ninja wear all black in traditional Japanese theater.
> It shows the audience the brutality and coldness of the character.
> It's a strong symbol for a killer coldly murdering a victim. It is
> NOT supposed to be taken literally, and fools on the street doing so
> not only fail to appreciate the movie art, but have no real clue
> about handling a firearm.
I thought I just said that. :-)
Tomansky
> If I see some goon holding his pistol sideways while shooting at me, I'll thank
> my lucky stars. It means he probably won't hit me except by pure accident.
>
> Almost Certainly Bogus Theory For Sideways Shooting: I *heard* than Israeli
> combat consultant for Hollywood started this. The story is that a lot of people
> in Israel carry their handguns with no round in the chamber, so that if someone
> grabs it and tries to shoot them, it just goes _click_. Of course, the downside
> of this is that the weapon's owner must work the slide manually before he can use
> it in an emergency. _Supposedly_, there's a technique whereby you work the slide
> as you're drawing it, which involves holding the weapon sideways to make that
> easier/faster--and if speed is essential, then you just go ahead and shoot with
> the gun in that position.
>
> It's almost certainlya completely bogus story.
>
> MY theory: Someone in Hollywood is deliberately teaching gangbangers (very few
> of whom actually know much about using firearms correctly) to shoot as
> ineffectively as possible by showing them a "cool" (and moronic) affectation.
That style of shooting serves a very useful purpose in film making,
like having a ninja wear all black in traditional Japanese theater.
It shows the audience the brutality and coldness of the character.
It's a strong symbol for a killer coldly murdering a victim. It is
NOT supposed to be taken literally, and fools on the street doing so
not only fail to appreciate the movie art, but have no real clue
about handling a firearm.
David Levi
Sean O'Flaherty
(Spm073) wrote:
One thing youšll never see in a Jon Woo movie, firing a pistol with two hands.
Andrew Priestley
silveroak wrote:
> NEil Phillips wrote in message
> <3698c627...@news.ade.connect.com.au>...
> >Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> saw fit to share the following
> >wisdom:
> >
> >>Depends on the bad-guys. if its your typical gang-banger, for whom a gun
> is as
> >>much a status symbol as a tool, and who holds a pistol sideways and with
> his wrist
> >>cocked downward at 20 degrees, then this is accurate, you can't hit the
> broad side
> >>of a barn shooting like that, but if you are fighting military folks with
> real
> >>firearms training and tactical movement training...look out.
> >
> >I modeled a necro ganger to be holding his gun that way, too :)
> >Stye is everything..
> >
> >In GURPS terms, what would be the negative modifier for holding a
> >pistol sideways?
>
> I have heard somewhere that this is done to make the recoil easier to
> control... of course aiming with the sights becomes impossible, so you might
> as well throw away the weapon's accuracy bonus.
Recoil energies try to go 180 degrees from the path of bullet flight, but since
the bore of most handguns is above the support of the hand, the highest point on
the hand becomes a fulcrum with the gun being the lever. The gun will seek to
rotate over the top of that fulcrum and around (loose-grip a .357 revolver and
you'll see how this works when the hammer comes back and bites you in the web of
your hand.) This prinsiple functions no matter how you hold the gun.
Another thing that happens is as the gun comes back, it is resisted by the
inertia of the shooter's braced arm and body. The energy needs to dissipate, so
it follows the path of least resistance. Down is out since you are already
exerting force to hold the gun up from the forces of gravity, up on the other
hand is an excellent choice and is actually aided by your resistance to
gravity. This also happening in the sidewards presentation, now the problem is
the weapon is torqing back and up from the ground against the dubious strength
of the wrist. Ouch!
This grip is pure style and no substance. You can probably get away with it if
you are using something puny like a .380 or even a .38spcl. but anything more
powerful than a 9mm is going to really try to bite you. A .40 S&W or .357
magnum might really tear you up since their recoil is so sharp.
The best grip for eating up recoil is probably either the Weaver or Isosceles
stances. The Weaver is the classic "weak" side forward, angled stance, two
handed grip with the strong side arm braced and gripping the pistol strongly so
that pressure is front to back not side to side. The "weak" hand is wrapped
around the strong hand, not cupped under it, or grasping the wrist or anything
else, but wrapped directly over the non-trigger fingers of the strong hand, with
the weak hand thumb over the strong hand thumb. The weak hand grips even harder
than the strong hand. You know you are gripping hard enough by gripping until
your hand starts to shake, then releasing pressure until it steadies. In this
position, with the weapon presented toward the target, you lean slightly into
the target. If you are performing this properly, you will be able to eat up the
recoil of just about any handgun, with little more than an inch or two of muzzle
flip, that your strong hand-grip will immediately pull out to put you back on
target.
The isosceles stance works almost exactly the same way except that your feet
will be directly perpendicular to the direction of fire and your shoulders and
hips will be square to the target. It may be marginally less efficient at
absorbing recoil and is not perhaps as tactically flexible, but many excellent
shooters have used it very successfully for a long-long time. Right now the
Weaver stance is the most popular stance in Hollyweird and among competitive
shooters, but that can change.
Iceman
Incanus
> The best grip for eating up recoil is probably either the Weaver or
> Isosceles stances. The Weaver is the classic "weak" side forward, angled
> stance, two handed grip with the strong side arm braced and gripping the
> pistol strongly so that pressure is front to back not side to side. The
> "weak" hand is wrapped around the strong hand, not cupped under it, or
> grasping the wrist or anything else, but wrapped directly over the
> non-trigger fingers of the strong hand, with the weak hand thumb over the
> strong hand thumb. The weak hand grips even harder than the strong hand.
> You know you are gripping hard enough by gripping until your hand starts
> to shake, then releasing pressure until it steadies. In this position,
> with the weapon presented toward the target, you lean slightly into the
> target. If you are performing this properly, you will be able to eat up
> the recoil of just about any handgun, with little more than an inch or two
> of muzzle flip, that your strong hand-grip will immediately pull out to
> put you back on target.
>
> The isosceles stance works almost exactly the same way except that your
> feet will be directly perpendicular to the direction of fire and your
> shoulders and hips will be square to the target. It may be marginally
> less efficient at absorbing recoil and is not perhaps as tactically
> flexible, but many excellent shooters have used it very successfully for a
> long-long time. Right now the Weaver stance is the most popular stance in
> Hollyweird and among competitive shooters, but that can change.
Sounds interesting -- maybe this could be turned into Maneuvers, with a
succesful roll negating as many points of recoil penalty?
--
Incanus: inc...@bigfoot.com
Personal Web page: http://www.bakal.hr/incanus/
Rare GURPS Items: http://www.bakal.hr/incanus/gurps/
silveroak
Andrew Priestley wrote in message <369F7240...@ziplink.net>...
Don't guns also jerk to the right? If so, turning it sideways would
convert up and right to left and up, which could then be resisted by moving
the arm and hand to compensate.
Not that I have tried this, but this is what I have heard the reason to
be. I suspect the only real way to reality test it is to go down to the
range and shoot a few rounds each way.
Both of which use two hands. If you have a need to have the other hand
free for some reason (opening doors, jumping fences, whatever) then you
would have to come up with a different bracing method.
Brian Bunin
>Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
>> The best grip for eating up recoil is probably either the Weaver or
>> Isosceles stances. The Weaver is the classic "weak" side forward, angled
>> stance, two handed grip with the strong side arm braced and gripping the
>> pistol strongly so that pressure is front to back not side to side. The
>> "weak" hand is wrapped around the strong hand, not cupped under it, or
>> grasping the wrist or anything else, but wrapped directly over the
>> non-trigger fingers of the strong hand, with the weak hand thumb over the
>> strong hand thumb. The weak hand grips even harder than the strong hand.
>> You know you are gripping hard enough by gripping until your hand starts
>> to shake, then releasing pressure until it steadies. In this position,
>> with the weapon presented toward the target, you lean slightly into the
>> target. If you are performing this properly, you will be able to eat up
>> the recoil of just about any handgun, with little more than an inch or two
>> of muzzle flip, that your strong hand-grip will immediately pull out to
>> put you back on target.
>>
>> The isosceles stance works almost exactly the same way except that your
>> feet will be directly perpendicular to the direction of fire and your
>> shoulders and hips will be square to the target. It may be marginally
>> less efficient at absorbing recoil and is not perhaps as tactically
>> flexible, but many excellent shooters have used it very successfully for a
>> long-long time. Right now the Weaver stance is the most popular stance in
>> Hollyweird and among competitive shooters, but that can change.
>
>succesful roll negating as many points of recoil penalty?
>
I wouldn't. Mainly because this is reflected in your skill. A skilled Pistol
shooter will be using a stance like this because he's learned it's more
effective.
Andrew, you've missed one other point on your explanation. That is that when
holding a pistol, the path of least resistance is to BEND the elbow. When you
fire, you get recoil and you have two choices on how to deal with it. Either
let it push you back, or let it ride UP by bending the elbow.....
Never actually tried firing a pistol in that sideways grip, but I SUPPOSE that
the recoil MIGHT cause your arm to bend sideways, rather than up. Still
going to be LOTS more difficult to reaquire your target than simple letting
gravity bring it back down to line................
Not IPSC grade, but a pretty good shot....
Brian
Gregory Loren Hansen
Brian Bunin <bb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Andrew, you've missed one other point on your explanation. That is that when
>holding a pistol, the path of least resistance is to BEND the elbow. When you
>fire, you get recoil and you have two choices on how to deal with it. Either
>let it push you back, or let it ride UP by bending the elbow.....
>Never actually tried firing a pistol in that sideways grip, but I SUPPOSE that
>the recoil MIGHT cause your arm to bend sideways, rather than up. Still
>going to be LOTS more difficult to reaquire your target than simple letting
>gravity bring it back down to line................
Hmm... an isosceles stance with the pistol held sideways?
Naw. Cool people just don't use the isosceles stance.
Andrew Priestley
silveroak wrote:
>
>
> Don't guns also jerk to the right? If so, turning it sideways would
> convert up and right to left and up, which could then be resisted by moving
> the arm and hand to compensate.
> Not that I have tried this, but this is what I have heard the reason to
> be. I suspect the only real way to reality test it is to go down to the
> range and shoot a few rounds each way.
You don't MOVE your hands at all to compensate for anything, this is called
"heeling", "flinching" etc. and screws up accuracy. The goal of an accurate
shooter is not to move the hands actively at all. Recoil recovery (rather than
compensation) is a function of a strong grip and solid stance, not so much an
active effort to bring the gun back on target. If you ever try it, you'll find
that with a proper grip, the gun returns to target all by itself and quite
quickly. Its muscle memory more than anything else.
Guns don't jerk in any particular direction in recoil. They try to go straight
back ('equal and opposite reaction", but they tend to rotate around the fulcrum
of the web of the gripping hand since the barrel is almost always above the
wrist. (Some target "free" pistols employn a single shot action that allows the
barrel to be aligned almost directly in front of the wrist, but these are not
practical combat pistols since they are all .22 caliber rimfires, or even air
pistols.
The tendancy of a gun to move either right, left or up, is a factor of
ergonomics and weaknesses in the shooters stance. If your knowledge of shooting
is heavily mis-informed by Hollyweird, what you may be witnessing is the actors
jerking the pistol to make it look like it is kicking wildly. Don Johnson is
one of the worst offenders in this regard. If you look at him in the inevitable
shooting scenes of Nash Bridges, you will often see the gun "recoiling" before
it is fired. Don't bother with watching TV or Movies for firearms information,
they are inevitably dramaticised.
>
> >Weaver stance is the most popular stance in Hollyweird and among
> competitive
> >shooters, but that can change.
> >
>
> Both of which use two hands. If you have a need to have the other hand
> free for some reason (opening doors, jumping fences, whatever) then you
> would have to come up with a different bracing method.
Jumping fences is best done with the weapon holstered, otherwise you are asking
for an accidental discharge. If you are operating with a partner, they can
cover you while you get over the fence, when you get to the other side, you draw
your weapon and cover your partner as best you can while he/or she gets over the
fence. Going through doors is a tactical issue, no matter what you do, you are
in a weak position since you cannot necessarily see what's on the other side of
the door. No matter what you do, you don;t want to put yourself in a position
where the door can be slammed back at you or used to trap you against a wall.
A one handed grip, regardless of the style, is a weak and unstable grip, but it
is better to work with the biomechanics of your body than against them. The
hand/wrist is more stable in the traditional upright position than in any
other. Consider something else, pistols have been made and shot in this way for
something like 500 years, countless variations have been tried over the years
with various degrees of failure, the only effective ones that have continued are
the basic, traditional upright hand-designs. It may not look cool, but it is
effective and practical.
Another thing to consider: If the sideways grip had anything to recommend it,
competition shooters would be using it...they don't. The sideways grip is
mostly a Hollyweird invention to make gangsters look "bad."
Iceman
Johnf4303
competition shooters would be using it...they don't. The sideways grip is
mostly a Hollyweird invention to make gangsters look "bad."
Iceman
I read an article about this in a handgunning mag, once. The writer really
tried to see any justification for this position. He said that if you really
practised with it, and used the sights even though they were sideways, you
might be able to hit something in front of you, but what's the point?
He mentioned some cases where law officers & others he knew of who had
actually fired with the gun sideways, rarely hit the target. It was a spur of
the moment thing, quickly abandoned once they had time to think.
I think he said that it was completely invented by one director to make things
look different & cool.
John Frazer
Boulder
"Not only does God play dice, but he throws them where they can't be seen"
--Stephen Hawking--
silveroak
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote in message
<788jlf$6lu$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>In article <19990121173940...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
>Johnf4303 <john...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Another thing to consider: If the sideways grip had anything to recommend
it,
>>competition shooters would be using it...they don't. The sideways grip is
>>mostly a Hollyweird invention to make gangsters look "bad."
>>
>>Iceman
>>
>> I read an article about this in a handgunning mag, once. The writer
really
>>tried to see any justification for this position. He said that if you
really
>>practised with it, and used the sights even though they were sideways, you
>>might be able to hit something in front of you, but what's the point?
>> He mentioned some cases where law officers & others he knew of who had
>>actually fired with the gun sideways, rarely hit the target. It was a spur
of
>>the moment thing, quickly abandoned once they had time to think.
>> I think he said that it was completely invented by one director to make
things
>>look different & cool.
>
>sights have a certain amount of "drop" built into them. So if you shoot
>at a target twenty or thirty feet away, the bullet will have curved about
>into where you wanted to shoot. Then if you shoot the thing sideways,
>you'd be hitting off to the left.
>
I don't know about film Vs. real life, but another consideration: police
ranges are based upon a supposition that weapons fire will be exchanged over
a distance of 30 yards or so. The 'typical' use of this, at least as it is
portrayed, is when one hand is needed for other things and the combat is
taking place inside a building: very short ranges. the accuracy is probably
not the greatest issue. Come to think of it, the greatest issue might be the
chance of someone surprising you and knocking the gun out of your hand, and
the sideways position certainly prevents the tradition 'knock the gun up'
maneuver from being effective...
Gregory Loren Hansen
Johnf4303 <john...@aol.com> wrote:
>Another thing to consider: If the sideways grip had anything to recommend it,
>competition shooters would be using it...they don't. The sideways grip is
>mostly a Hollyweird invention to make gangsters look "bad."
>
>Iceman
>
> I read an article about this in a handgunning mag, once. The writer really
>tried to see any justification for this position. He said that if you really
>practised with it, and used the sights even though they were sideways, you
>might be able to hit something in front of you, but what's the point?
> He mentioned some cases where law officers & others he knew of who had
>actually fired with the gun sideways, rarely hit the target. It was a spur of
>the moment thing, quickly abandoned once they had time to think.
> I think he said that it was completely invented by one director to make things
>look different & cool.
This might be a question for someone like Iceman. I wonder if pistol
sights have a certain amount of "drop" built into them. So if you shoot
at a target twenty or thirty feet away, the bullet will have curved about
into where you wanted to shoot. Then if you shoot the thing sideways,
you'd be hitting off to the left.
--
Spm073
the attacker to use the twisting torque of his waist rather than the rising or
falling torque of his shoulders, which is much weaker.
TRP
apparently actually used by the Chinese early this century for machine
pistols. The idea was that the bullets spray out in a fan rather than
having many of the bullets lost to the sky as was prone to happening.
TRP of the AGG
Andrew Priestley
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> In article <19990121173940...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
> Johnf4303 <john...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Another thing to consider: If the sideways grip had anything to recommend it,
> >competition shooters would be using it...they don't. The sideways grip is
> >mostly a Hollyweird invention to make gangsters look "bad."
> >
> >Iceman
> >
> > I read an article about this in a handgunning mag, once. The writer really
> >tried to see any justification for this position. He said that if you really
> >practised with it, and used the sights even though they were sideways, you
> >might be able to hit something in front of you, but what's the point?
> > He mentioned some cases where law officers & others he knew of who had
> >actually fired with the gun sideways, rarely hit the target. It was a spur of
> >the moment thing, quickly abandoned once they had time to think.
> > I think he said that it was completely invented by one director to make things
> >look different & cool.
>
> This might be a question for someone like Iceman. I wonder if pistol
> sights have a certain amount of "drop" built into them. So if you shoot
> at a target twenty or thirty feet away, the bullet will have curved about
> into where you wanted to shoot. Then if you shoot the thing sideways,
> you'd be hitting off to the left.
Combat pistol sights are typically fixed in position at the factory to put the shot
on target at x range with a standard load for such a pistol. The standard seems to
be about 25 meters. Sights can be adjusted according to the ranges an individual
shooter shoots at. Competition shooters will often replace fixed sights with
adjustable sights that allow them to fine tune for their ammunition or the ranges
and conditions the expect to encounter on a given day.
That said, yes, pistol sights are typically regulated at the factory to designate
the point of impact (roughly) at a certain range. Shooter inconsistencies and
different types of ammunition affect this. The sideways movie shooting style
negates the alignment of the sights, but this really isn't a problem since the style
doesn't appear to be favored for accurate shooting as much as it is for gangster
style, in-your-face hits from say 3 meters or less.
Iceman
silveroak
Spm073 wrote in message <19990122024029...@ng-fc1.aol.com>...
Okay, I'm trying to visualize this: generally the concept I have seen
for disarming is to either hit the barrel or grab the barrel (depending on
the presumed competence of whomever is holding the gun) and knock/push it
upwards quickly. Even if they don't let go, there are very few viable
targets straight up...
Now you are talking about twisting from your waist, I don't see what
approach you are taking on this.
Andrew Priestley
silveroak wrote:
> Gregory Loren Hansen wrote in message
> <788jlf$6lu$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> I don't know about film Vs. real life, but another consideration: police
> ranges are based upon a supposition that weapons fire will be exchanged over
> a distance of 30 yards or so. The 'typical' use of this, at least as it is
> portrayed, is when one hand is needed for other things and the combat is
> taking place inside a building: very short ranges. the accuracy is probably
> not the greatest issue. Come to think of it, the greatest issue might be the
> chance of someone surprising you and knocking the gun out of your hand, and
> the sideways position certainly prevents the tradition 'knock the gun up'
> maneuver from being effective...
Most shooting encounters actually take place at ranges of between 3 and 10
meters, with the majority of shots fired missing their targets due to panic,
flinching, rushing etc. Police ranges are longer than 10 meters for the simple
reason that if you can develop some semblance of accuracy at 50 meters under
non-stressed conditions, you stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting off
one good shot out of 6 or 15 at ten meters, during a shootout.
As far as weapon retention is concerned, a solid two handed grip with your
partner covering you is the best way to ensure that your weapon will stay in
your hands. Allowing your opponent to come within arms reach of your weapon is
always a serious mistake, allowing a properly trained person to get inside your
weapon hand about 90% of the time before you can squeeze off the shot or even
react. The "gangsta grip" is not stronger, in fact it requires you to twist
your wrist and shoulder to achieve it rather than to keep your wrist properly
aligned with your forearm and shoulder, such as is used with the traditional
grip.
The fact of the matter is...and some people evidently don't want to hear
it...that the gangsta grip is essentially a stylistic quirk with no practical
benefits. Trying to find some rationalization for it is pointless since there
really is none.
Iceman
Steven Smith
silveroak wrote:
I think he's just saying that if your arm is already twisted 90 degrees(to hold
the gun sideways), then it will be far easier for someone to disarm you by
twisting the gun out of your hand. Personally, I think they look like fucking
idiots when they(dumb hollywood wannabes) shoot like this. I will agree that it
is an effective means of firing light machine pistols and similar weapons to get
a "fan" effect, but that is a whole different story.
Stevenator
--
Steven Smith, MCSE, MCSD
http://www.aspalliance.com/stevesmith
Andrew Priestley
Steven Smith wrote:
Having never done that with a light machine pistol (the Mauser c96/98 series was the
favorite of the Chinese) I can't really comment on how effective it is for fan
shooting. One thing I can say is that spray fire is over-rated for everything
except forcing people to keep their heads down and for clearing small rooms.
Machine pistols are also incredibly difficult to control under any circumstance
being way too light for that kind of continued recoil. Machine pistols also wear
out quickly since they build up more heat faster and the pounding of rapid fire
builds up fast.
The best way to shoot a fully automatic weapon is with a shoulder stock anyhow,
machine-pistols are bastard creations with little real use.
Iceman
Rob
Snip
> The fact of the matter is...and some people evidently don't want to hear
> it...that the gangsta grip is essentially a stylistic quirk with no practical
> benefits. Trying to find some rationalization for it is pointless since there
> really is none.
>
> Iceman
I second this. I tryed to shoot my brother's .45 this way just to see. Never
could hit anything, even at less than 5 yds. It's a pretty stupid way to fire a
pistol.
Rob
Spm073
behind cover without line of sight target acquisition. The fan was foolishly
accepted to somehow compensate for ineffective grip strength and control when
using the machine pistol. They were trying to compensate for barrel-lift,
which is ironically countered by a good solid base and ergonomically correct
grip on the pistol. Barrel-lift is a byproduct of people using poor trigger
control and poor mechanics. Even a small framed person can hold a shoulder
mounted MG on target for a full mag at fullauto with good technique. But then
again, who ever fires at full-auto? Another lesson for a nother day.
Gregory Loren Hansen
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>As far as weapon retention is concerned, a solid two handed grip with your
>partner covering you is the best way to ensure that your weapon will stay in
>your hands. Allowing your opponent to come within arms reach of your weapon is
>always a serious mistake, allowing a properly trained person to get inside your
>weapon hand about 90% of the time before you can squeeze off the shot or even
>react. The "gangsta grip" is not stronger, in fact it requires you to twist
>your wrist and shoulder to achieve it rather than to keep your wrist properly
>aligned with your forearm and shoulder, such as is used with the traditional
>grip.
What about those close encounter stances. Your weapon is even with or
behind your body, and your off-arm is in front to block a rushing attacker
and keep him away from your gun.
>The fact of the matter is...and some people evidently don't want to hear
>it...that the gangsta grip is essentially a stylistic quirk with no practical
>benefits. Trying to find some rationalization for it is pointless since there
>really is none.
It's style, baby! It's all about style!
I like what one participant here said. I forget what he said, but I took
it to mean that the gangsta takes killing so casually that he doesn't even
bother to use a proper grip.
SRogers130
"The natural Fist". If you hold your hand out in front of your body
natuarally, they you will probably find that the "top" of your fist is
inclined at about halfway between vertical and horizontal. The theory was that
if you held your gun this way it would put less strain on your body. Based on
my personal experience, the benefits of this technique are negligible, if any.
Steve
Steve
Yoicks! And Away!
Gregory Loren Hansen
Gosh, I wish I could get ahold of a few different types of automatic
weapons, and a hell of a lot of ammo, and play with them for a few hours
and just try this stuff out on my own. Do they necessarily lift up
("howling at the moon", I think someone here called it), which seems to be
the common consensus among GMs in the area (i.e. a -2 recoil means -2,
then -4, then -6, then -8, etc., until you stop shooting)? Just how hard
is it to stay on a man-sized target at, oh, say 10 meters?
(And all answering of questions aside, it'd be fun.)
Micheal E. Smyth
for realism. The only practical use for holding the pistol sideaways is eye
dominance problems Right handed people can be left eye dominant. This forces
the firer to hold the sights where his left eye can percieve them.
Gregory Loren Hansen
Hey, that actually makes sense! Right-handed, left-eyed people really
shoot like that?
--
I do not work for a secret organization bent on world domination.
You did not read this disclaimer.
Douglas Kilpatrick
>
> >for realism. The only practical use for holding the pistol sideaways is eye
> >dominance problems Right handed people can be left eye dominant. This forces
> >the firer to hold the sights where his left eye can percieve them.
>
> Hey, that actually makes sense! Right-handed, left-eyed people really
> shoot like that?
I can't speak for all of them, or even any that can actually shoot...
I just move the pistol to the left some, so it lines up. Of course, I'm
not very good either.
Doug
-- kilp...@erols.com
Spm073
slight closing of my left eye solves it without any modifications of my grip or
sight alignment
Mike Nichols
"John Woo" style is not due to left eye dominance. It is only effective (IMHO) for
putting a large amount of lead down range in a short amount of time.
FWIW, if you are left eye dominant, you shoot a rifle left handed (if you want to
hit anything on a continual basis), but you can shoot a bow right handed.
Brian Bunin
>In article <19990122185045...@ng153.aol.com>,
>Spm073 <spm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>The fan technique was designed to allow better cover fire for shooting from
>>behind cover without line of sight target acquisition. The fan was foolishly
>>accepted to somehow compensate for ineffective grip strength and control when
>>using the machine pistol. They were trying to compensate for barrel-lift,
>>which is ironically countered by a good solid base and ergonomically correct
>>grip on the pistol. Barrel-lift is a byproduct of people using poor trigger
>>control and poor mechanics. Even a small framed person can hold a shoulder
>>mounted MG on target for a full mag at fullauto with good technique. But then
>>again, who ever fires at full-auto? Another lesson for a nother day.
>
>Gosh, I wish I could get ahold of a few different types of automatic
>weapons, and a hell of a lot of ammo, and play with them for a few hours
>and just try this stuff out on my own. Do they necessarily lift up
>("howling at the moon", I think someone here called it), which seems to be
>the common consensus among GMs in the area (i.e. a -2 recoil means -2,
>then -4, then -6, then -8, etc., until you stop shooting)? Just how hard
>is it to stay on a man-sized target at, oh, say 10 meters?
>
>(And all answering of questions aside, it'd be fun.)
>
Well, go down to your local shooting range(every city has at least ONE) ask if
you can shoot that mac 10 or Uzi that they keep for JUST that reason!
Seriously, most ranges do have something full auto that you can rent for 15 or
half an hour on their range....
Gregory Loren Hansen
Brian Bunin <bb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, go down to your local shooting range(every city has at least ONE) ask if
>you can shoot that mac 10 or Uzi that they keep for JUST that reason!
>
>Seriously, most ranges do have something full auto that you can rent for 15 or
>half an hour on their range....
Really? They have automatic weapons hanging around just for recreational
shooting? Do I need any kind of license or qualification before I can
pick it up? Is it a rental deal? I suppose it depends on the range, but
how does that typically work?
Amber, Dan, Dare, or Julie
And for that matter, what defines a SMG; I've seen game stats, but I've
as yet to see anything that separates the two...
- Dare, GURPSist extraordinaire and plenipotentiary
* All typos in the previous message are to be considered edicts of Eris.
Please update your dictionaries accordingly.
* Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
* Spammers looking for addresses? Try these: jamey...@hotmail.com,
ja...@hotmail.com Spam me and get your address here today!
Incanus
> What, technically, defines a machine pistol?
> And for that matter, what defines a SMG; I've seen game stats, but I've
> as yet to see anything that separates the two...
Yes, that confuses me too. As I understand, an SMG is an automatic rifle
that fire pistol ammo (in GURPS Vehicles terms: low-powered); a machine
pistol would be the same, but smaller. E.g. an UZI would be an SMG; a
Mini-UZI would be a machine pistol. But where is the boundary?
--
Incanus: inc...@bigfoot.com
Personal Web page: http://www.bakal.hr/incanus/
Rare GURPS Items: http://www.bakal.hr/incanus/gurps/
Andrew Priestley
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> In article <78e0u5$ttc$1...@tourist.gnt.net>,
> Micheal E. Smyth <shrp...@gnt.net> wrote:
> >As a firearms instructor it pains me to watch everybody try to use movies
> >for realism. The only practical use for holding the pistol sideaways is eye
> >dominance problems Right handed people can be left eye dominant. This forces
> >the firer to hold the sights where his left eye can percieve them.
>
> Hey, that actually makes sense! Right-handed, left-eyed people really
> shoot like that?
>
No, I just turn my head a little so I can sight through my left eye.
Iceman
Mark Jones
Incanus wrote:
> Amber, Dan, Dare, or Julie <delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > What, technically, defines a machine pistol?
> > And for that matter, what defines a SMG; I've seen game stats, but I've
> > as yet to see anything that separates the two...
>
> Yes, that confuses me too. As I understand, an SMG is an automatic rifle
> that fire pistol ammo (in GURPS Vehicles terms: low-powered); a machine
> pistol would be the same, but smaller. E.g. an UZI would be an SMG; a
> Mini-UZI would be a machine pistol. But where is the boundary?
As far as I know, its a question of whether or not the weapon is designed for use
with two hands. The Thompson SMG has a grip for each hand. The SMGs generally
have either an actual grip or at least some place on the front end of the weapon
that you can hold without burning your hand on the hot barrel.
The machinepistols, on the other hand, are one-handed monstrosities. (Now, you
might manage to use both hands on it if you tried, and God knows you'd _want_ to
use both hands, since even standard pistols are better employed with a two handed
grip, but they aren't _designed_ for it.) The Glock 30(?) is a machinepistol that
looks just like another semi-auto Glock save for the selector switch. (I recall
reading about a police department which ordered a bunch of the semi-auto Glocks and
discovered that few ofthe machine-pistol variants were accidentally included when
an officer fired one on the range....)
>
>
> --
> Incanus: inc...@bigfoot.com
> Personal Web page: http://www.bakal.hr/incanus/
> Rare GURPS Items: http://www.bakal.hr/incanus/gurps/
--
Mark Jones
"The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get
accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to
discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever
may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality!" -
Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943
Mark Jones
Andrew Priestley wrote:
I'm left-eye dominant and _mostly_ right-handed, but I shoot (and use silverware)
left-handed. Which is why I like my Glock so much. I don't have to worry about
guns designed for right-handed shooters.
Matthew Ivester
<delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
>What, technically, defines a machine pistol?
> And for that matter, what defines a SMG; I've seen game stats, but I've
>as yet to see anything that separates the two...
I just saw a thing on the History channel last night about German guns
in WWII. Nifty stuff. They talked about the MP38, among others.
Essentially, a "machine pistol" is an automatic weapon that shoots
pistol rounds. A "sub-machine gun" is an automatic weapon that shoots
pistol rounds. There's no difference between the terms (at least as
far as I know.)
>
> - Dare, GURPSist extraordinaire and plenipotentiary
>
>* All typos in the previous message are to be considered edicts of Eris.
>Please update your dictionaries accordingly.
>* Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
>* Spammers looking for addresses? Try these: jamey...@hotmail.com,
>ja...@hotmail.com Spam me and get your address here today!
Matt Ivester
ive...@ne.mediaone.net
General UNIX lackey, EMC Corp.
Mark Jones
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> In article <36ac0...@news.greatbasin.net>,
> Brian Bunin <bb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, go down to your local shooting range(every city has at least ONE) ask if
> >you can shoot that mac 10 or Uzi that they keep for JUST that reason!
> >
> >Seriously, most ranges do have something full auto that you can rent for 15 or
> >half an hour on their range....
>
> Really? They have automatic weapons hanging around just for recreational
> shooting? Do I need any kind of license or qualification before I can
> pick it up? Is it a rental deal? I suppose it depends on the range, but
> how does that typically work?
Well, I've never been to a range that kept machineguns around for rental,
but--assuming they're legal in your state--there's no reason why they couldn't.
On the other hand, a rifle range here in Oregon has a full-auto shoot every year.
Folks who own machineguns of all kinds (from machinepistols to vehicle-mounted 50
cal) come to the range to shoot them, and to rent them to poor saps like me who
can't afford them for ourselves. And no, as long as you can legally handle a gun
at all, there's nothing illegal about you shooting a full-auto weapon. I've fired
Thompsons, M-16s, FALs and various other full-auto weapons. It's a riot!
>
>
> --
> I do not work for a secret organization bent on world domination.
> You did not read this disclaimer.
--
Tomansky
>
> In article <36ac0...@news.greatbasin.net>,
> Brian Bunin <bb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, go down to your local shooting range(every city has at least ONE) ask if
> >you can shoot that mac 10 or Uzi that they keep for JUST that reason!
> >
> >Seriously, most ranges do have something full auto that you can rent for 15 or
> >half an hour on their range....
>
> Really? They have automatic weapons hanging around just for recreational
> shooting? Do I need any kind of license or qualification before I can
> pick it up? Is it a rental deal? I suppose it depends on the range, but
> how does that typically work?
I don't know where you live, but here in Florida, all a range wants
is cash. And blowing away on rock 'n roll tends to get pricey in a
hurry, but be sure to book in advance, as they are sometimes busy.
There is even a local gun club that shoots everything under the Sun,
and for the price of the ammo has always been enthusiastically
helpful to me. I haven't tried it, but one of them owns a Barrett
82.
David Levi
Michael Riddle
Incanus wrote:
> Amber, Dan, Dare, or Julie <delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > What, technically, defines a machine pistol?
> > And for that matter, what defines a SMG; I've seen game stats, but I've
> > as yet to see anything that separates the two...
>
> Yes, that confuses me too. As I understand, an SMG is an automatic rifle
> that fire pistol ammo (in GURPS Vehicles terms: low-powered); a machine
> pistol would be the same, but smaller. E.g. an UZI would be an SMG; a
> Mini-UZI would be a machine pistol. But where is the boundary?
>
IMHO, it deals with th enumber of hands required to "handle" the weapon, If the
weapon can be fired accurately with one hand it is a machine pistol, 2 hands it is
a SMG.
Other measure I have heard is if the gun has a folding/collapsable stock it is a
SMG, no stock = machine pistol, fixed stock = Assault Rifle...
Michael Riddle
Daniel Haufschild
Mike Nichols wrote in message <36ABBC1F...@chisp.dot.net>...
I am right-eye dominant and left-handed, but because of this I instinctively
aimed guns with my right hand.
However, with pistols I do not believe there is any difference with what
hand
you use. Whether you use left or right, you will need to adjust the angle of
the
gun to line up the sights. With rifles, you gotta learn to shoot from your
aiming
eye side, though.
P.
Boba Fett
Michael Riddle wrote:
> IMHO, it deals with th enumber of hands required to "handle" the weapon, If the
> weapon can be fired accurately with one hand it is a machine pistol, 2 hands it is
> a SMG.
>
> Other measure I have heard is if the gun has a folding/collapsable stock it is a
> SMG, no stock = machine pistol, fixed stock = Assault Rifle...
>
> Michael Riddle
NO a SMG (Sub-Machine Gun) Is usually a short barreled 16" or less
Selective Fire carbine chambered in a PISTOL caliber eg. .45ACP 9mm.
10mm. .40 S&W examples are
IMI- Uzi 9mm and .45ACP versions
Hecker & Koch- MP-5 and varients
An Assault rifle is a Select rifle or carbine that fires an itermediate
cartridge 7.62x39mm, 5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm.NATO (.223 Remington)and some
include the 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) round in this catagory
though it is realy a full power cartridge like the.30-06
Examples Include
7.62x39 and 5.45x39 / Kalashnikov AK-47, AKM, AKMS, AK-74, AK-100, ect
5.56x45 / Colt / Armalite M-16, M16A1, M16A2, M4C
These are often included inthe Assault Rifle Catagory But are realy Main
Battle Rifles.
7.62x51mm NATO- Heckler & Koch- G3
Springfield Armory- M-14
Fabrique National- FAL (Fusil Atomatique Leger)
Armalite- AR-10
Any of the above can have a folding stock, having a folding stock does
not make any rifle an Assault Rifle
Doug.
Louie A Johns
Mark Jones wrote in message <36ACEFEA...@pacifier.com>...
>
>
>Incanus wrote:
>
>> Amber, Dan, Dare, or Julie <delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What, technically, defines a machine pistol?
>> > And for that matter, what defines a SMG; I've seen game stats,
but I've
>> > as yet to see anything that separates the two...
>>
>> Yes, that confuses me too. As I understand, an SMG is an automatic rifle
>> that fire pistol ammo (in GURPS Vehicles terms: low-powered); a machine
>> pistol would be the same, but smaller. E.g. an UZI would be an SMG; a
>> Mini-UZI would be a machine pistol. But where is the boundary?
>
for use
>with two hands. The Thompson SMG has a grip for each hand. The SMGs
generally
>have either an actual grip or at least some place on the front end of the
weapon
>that you can hold without burning your hand on the hot barrel.
>
>The machinepistols, on the other hand, are one-handed monstrosities. (Now,
you
>might manage to use both hands on it if you tried, and God knows you'd
_want_ to
>use both hands, since even standard pistols are better employed with a two
handed
>grip, but they aren't _designed_ for it.) The Glock 30(?) is a
machinepistol that
>looks just like another semi-auto Glock save for the selector switch. (I
recall
>reading about a police department which ordered a bunch of the semi-auto
Glocks and
>discovered that few ofthe machine-pistol variants were accidentally
included when
>an officer fired one on the range....)
>
>>
>>
>> Incanus: inc...@bigfoot.com
>> Personal Web page: http://www.bakal.hr/incanus/
>> Rare GURPS Items: http://www.bakal.hr/incanus/gurps/
>
>
>
>Mark Jones
>
>"The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us
not get
>accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to
>discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul.
Whatever
>may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the
reality!" -
>Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943
>
I always thought that the length of the barrel was the main determination.
4-10 inches pistol. 10-12 carbine. 12 up rifle? I might be wrong but it
makes the most sense.
E-fud
Boba Fett
Boba Fett wrote:
>
> Michael Riddle wrote:
>
> > IMHO, it deals with th enumber of hands required to "handle" the weapon, If the
> > weapon can be fired accurately with one hand it is a machine pistol, 2 hands it is
> > a SMG.
> >
> > Other measure I have heard is if the gun has a folding/collapsable stock it is a
> > SMG, no stock = machine pistol, fixed stock = Assault Rifle...
> >
> > Michael Riddle
>
> NO a SMG (Sub-Machine Gun) Is usually a short barreled 16" or less
> Selective Fire carbine chambered in a PISTOL caliber eg. .45ACP 9mm.
> 10mm. .40 S&W examples are
> IMI- Uzi 9mm and .45ACP versions
> Hecker & Koch- MP-5 and varients
A SMG Can have a fixed or folding stock or no stock at all.
>
> An Assault rifle is a Select rifle or carbine that fires an itermediate
> cartridge 7.62x39mm, 5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm.NATO (.223 Remington)and some
> include the 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) round in this catagory
These Aren't the only calibers that Assault Rifles have been chambered
in just the most common.
> though it is realy a full power cartridge like the.30-06
> Examples Include
> 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 / Kalashnikov AK-47, AKM, AKMS, AK-74, AK-100, ect
> 5.56x45 / Colt / Armalite M-16, M16A1, M16A2, M4C
>
> These are often included inthe Assault Rifle Catagory But are realy Main
> Battle Rifles.
> 7.62x51mm NATO- Heckler & Koch- G3
> Springfield Armory- M-14
> Fabrique National- FAL (Fusil Atomatique Leger)
> Armalite- AR-10
>
> Any of the above can have a folding stock, having a folding stock does
> not make any rifle an Assault Rifle
>
> Doug.
Doug.
Spm073
hand. I keep the same trigger control and dominant hand as the main
controlling hand of the weapon. I've never had any problems with either
accuracy or target acquisistion, so eye dominance is not a significant factor
in any type of shooting
Andrew Priestley
Matthew Ivester wrote:
> On 25 Jan 1999 08:32:32 PST, "Amber, Dan, Dare, or Julie"
> <delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >What, technically, defines a machine pistol?
> > And for that matter, what defines a SMG; I've seen game stats, but I've
> >as yet to see anything that separates the two...
>
> I just saw a thing on the History channel last night about German guns
> in WWII. Nifty stuff. They talked about the MP38, among others.
>
> Essentially, a "machine pistol" is an automatic weapon that shoots
> pistol rounds. A "sub-machine gun" is an automatic weapon that shoots
> pistol rounds. There's no difference between the terms (at least as
> far as I know.)
The distinction is muddy at best.
The German's used the MP designation on a lot of weapons that really weren't SMGs,
the reason for this is hazy. The early STG 44 prototypes were listed as MP 44, in
order to hide them from Hitler who dissapproved of the assault rifle concept, but
liked SMGs and full powered rifles.
I use the term machine-pistol to designate automatic weapons designed as pistols or
around a pistol platform and converted to fire in full auto mode. Some notable
examples of the species...the Stechkin 9mm Russian, the Broomhandled Mauser, the HK
VP70M, The Glock 18 9mm, the IMI Micro-Uzi and the Beretta 93R. The Ingram MAC-11
could also be considered a machine pistol; its in the gray area. Machine pistols
are effective to maybe 50 yards on a good day, in the hands of a good shooter.
I consider SMGs to be fully auto weapons of a compact design, firing pistol
ammunition and with an effective range of about 100-150 yards or so. The HK MP5
series is the best example of the breed, the UZI, MAC-10, Spectre, Jati-Matic,
Walther MP Sterlings, Thompsons, M3 Grease Guns, Swedish-K/Smith and Wesson M45,
etc. are all SMGs.
There is a new class of weapons that seem to fall between machine pistols and SMGs,
they are the PDW (Personal Defense Weapons). HK's MP5K class falls in their so
does the semi-new Steyr P90, and the FN PN-90. The Various Mini-Uzi's could
certainly be retro-fitted into this category, so could the MAC's...all of them.
The chief characteristic of these weapons is concealability and practical full-auto
capability. I would question their effectiveness beyond 75-100 yards, but that is
really, really stretching it.
Assault rifles are essentially full-auto, intermediate power carbines, with barrels
in the 16-20 inch range. AR's are typically designed to have an effective range of
300-400 yards. The M-16 and Kalashnikov familes are the best known examples of
these.
Battle Rifles are full-power rifles with barrels in similar lengths as the AR's but
with a generally larger, heavier design and layout. Battle rifles are typically
designed to engage targets out to 600 yards. The FN-FAL, G-3, M-14, and M1 Garand
are probably the best examples of these. The Johnson Automatic Rifle is a little
known, but highly regarded example. The M-14 and Garand are essentially
interchangeable. I wouldn't even bother with a familiarity penalty between them
beyond a -1 for ACC until the shooter figures out the ballistic differences
(precious small as they are) between the 7.62mm NATO and the .30-06 cartridge. I
guess I would also give a small reloading penalty as well since the Garand is clip
loaded through the breech, not box-magazine loaded through the well. Other than
that, the sights are pretty much the same, the control layout is essentially the
same, and the maintenance procedures are virtually identical.
Iceman
duke_...@my-dejanews.com
This is my take on the whole issue. Many moons ago my Grandfather took me
out shooting. One of the weapons that we fired was his .45, that he had been
issued during WW2. During our time that we spent plinking targets, he showed
me how he and his fellow Marines used to imitate Humphrey Bogart, holding the
.45 at waist level and blaze away. In order to do this, the .45 must be held
at a 90 degree angle from how it is usually fired, or the slide will dig into
your arm when it comes back. Hope that this helps,
Chuck French ( who still has the scars from not doing it )
In article <36AAB1ED...@erols.com>,
Douglas Kilpatrick <kilp...@erols.com> wrote:
> Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> >
> > >for realism. The only practical use for holding the pistol sideaways is eye
> > >dominance problems Right handed people can be left eye dominant. This forces
> > >the firer to hold the sights where his left eye can percieve them.
> >
> > Hey, that actually makes sense! Right-handed, left-eyed people really
> > shoot like that?
>
> I can't speak for all of them, or even any that can actually shoot...
>
> I just move the pistol to the left some, so it lines up. Of course, I'm
> not very good either.
>
> Doug
> -- kilp...@erols.com
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
nutte...@my-dejanews.com
Boba Fett <boba...@pe.net> wrote:
>
>
> Michael Riddle wrote:
>
> > IMHO, it deals with th enumber of hands required to "handle" the weapon, If
the
> > weapon can be fired accurately with one hand it is a machine pistol, 2
hands it is
> > a SMG.
> >
> > Other measure I have heard is if the gun has a folding/collapsable stock it
is a
> > SMG, no stock = machine pistol, fixed stock = Assault Rifle...
> >
> > Michael Riddle
>
> NO a SMG (Sub-Machine Gun) Is usually a short barreled 16" or less
> Selective Fire carbine chambered in a PISTOL caliber eg. .45ACP 9mm.
> 10mm. .40 S&W examples are
> IMI- Uzi 9mm and .45ACP versions
> Hecker & Koch- MP-5 and varients
>
> cartridge 7.62x39mm, 5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm.NATO (.223 Remington)and some
> include the 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) round in this catagory
> Examples Include
> 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 / Kalashnikov AK-47, AKM, AKMS, AK-74, AK-100, ect
> 5.56x45 / Colt / Armalite M-16, M16A1, M16A2, M4C
>
> These are often included inthe Assault Rifle Catagory But are realy Main
> Battle Rifles.
> 7.62x51mm NATO- Heckler & Koch- G3
> Springfield Armory- M-14
> Fabrique National- FAL (Fusil Atomatique Leger)
> Armalite- AR-10
>
> Any of the above can have a folding stock, having a folding stock does
> not make any rifle an Assault Rifle
>
> Doug.
>
> carbines etc. and they often have automatic capabilities. As for caliber, yes
> they are usually pistol calibers using as small a cartridge as possible.
> I agree with the assement on the Sub-Machine-Gun, they are distinguished
> primarily by the stock being able to fold or slide into the body of the
> weapon as my M-3 .45 was. I used this weapon with great success in Vietnam
> and was approached on more than one occaision by infintry personnel to
> exchange my M-3 with their M-16, no way. Most Sub-Machine-Guns were designed
> from a pistol frame then enhanced with additional ammunition and automatic
> capabilities and of course a folding or sliding stock, also a short barrel
> similar to a pistol.
silveroak
Rob wrote in message <36A904E1...@virginia.edu>...
>
>Snip
>
>> The fact of the matter is...and some people evidently don't want to hear
>> it...that the gangsta grip is essentially a stylistic quirk with no
practical
>> benefits. Trying to find some rationalization for it is pointless since
there
>> really is none.
>>
>> Iceman
>
>I second this. I tryed to shoot my brother's .45 this way just to see.
Never
>could hit anything, even at less than 5 yds. It's a pretty stupid way to
fire a
>pistol.
>
A point I have noticed is how much the style resembles boxing: you hold
the pistol, start thrusting your fist towards what you want to hit, and pull
the trigger. It might even be considered a way of stretching a default from
brawling...
Andrew Priestley
silveroak wrote:
Have you also noticed that when they do this in movies, the muzzle of the gun
jumps all over the damned place as they squeeze off shot after shot? This is
called jerking the trigger and it throws accuracy off into never-never land i.e.
you never, never land a shot on target. Again, why bother rationalizing
something that is stylistic only and has no positive effects on shooting?
I watched "The Replacement Killers" a couple days ago and was amazed at how
pathetic the shooting skills were. Like in all John Woo and similar movies, the
characters fire off huge strings of shots from high capacity semi-auto pistols,
and hit maybe one shot in a magazine. This is stupid beyond stupid. If you
can't see your target, don't shoot at it. One well placed shot is worth its
weight in gold, where a dozen or more shots splashed all over the place, aren't
worth the cost of the bullets.
I didn't see one character shooting who was familiar enough with proper firearms
use to be able to squeeze the trigger without jerking the muzzle all over hell
and creation. Mira Sorvino was the worst of the bunch; the muzzle of her pistol
jerked maybe 2 inches off axis with each shot...of course she rarely hit the
broad side of a barn either.
Stylistic bull in the movies serves no real purpose, it may look tough, but it
isn't practical and if anything, deteriorates the effectiveness of the shot.
I would remove the ACC bonus of the weapon for anyone who wishes to shoot like
that and assign an extra -1 Recoil penalty.
Iceman
Charleson Mambo
<and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
[snip]
> I didn't see one character shooting who was familiar enough with proper
firearms
> use to be able to squeeze the trigger without jerking the muzzle all over hell
> and creation. Mira Sorvino was the worst of the bunch; the muzzle of
her pistol
> jerked maybe 2 inches off axis with each shot...of course she rarely hit the
> broad side of a barn either.
>
What? They gave the actors live munition?
Charleson Mambo
--
To send me email, first get rid of "SPAM"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change is bad.
Change sucks.
Embrace change.
Lo que no mata, engorda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Knight
> I watched "The Replacement Killers" a couple days ago and was amazed at how
> pathetic the shooting skills were. Like in all John Woo and similar movies, the
> characters fire off huge strings of shots from high capacity semi-auto pistols,
> and hit maybe one shot in a magazine. This is stupid beyond stupid. If you
> can't see your target, don't shoot at it. One well placed shot is worth its
> weight in gold, where a dozen or more shots splashed all over the place, aren't
> worth the cost of the bullets.
>
Yeah, but it *looks good*.
Andrew Priestley
Knight wrote:
Looks good gets you dead if there is no practical value behind it. It looks tough in
movies, but movies have the luxury of allowing piss-poor marksmanship to be
effective. In real life, it gets you dead.
Iceman
S. John Ross
|
| Looks good gets you dead if there is no practical value behind it. It
looks tough in
| movies, but movies have the luxury of allowing piss-poor marksmanship to
be
| effective. In real life, it gets you dead.
Hence, roleplaying games, which are about drama (or comedy or horror) and
not real life.
--
|| S. John Ross
|| Husband · Cook · Writer
|| In That Order
|| http://www.io.com/~sjohn/blue.htm · sj...@io.com
Steven Smith
S. John Ross wrote:
> | > Yeah, but it *looks good*.
> |
> | Looks good gets you dead if there is no practical value behind it. It
> looks tough in
> | movies, but movies have the luxury of allowing piss-poor marksmanship to
> be
> | effective. In real life, it gets you dead.
>
> Hence, roleplaying games, which are about drama (or comedy or horror) and
> not real life.
>
Not always -- a Special Ops game or Modern Crime game would also involve a lot
of necessary real world tactics. It's nice to be able to see if your PCs can
rescue the hostages or stop the bank robbers using as realistic of rules as
possible(ie, like real life) and not actually have any of the players get
shot...
Stevenator
--
Steven Smith, MCSE, MCSD
http://www.aspalliance.com/stevesmith