Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-29-2018, 04:12 PM   #341
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
The answer to that is a double bass case,
I'm wondering, if the Covert Dreadnought Guitar Double Rifle Case can fit two hunting or tactical rifles of over 40" length, could you fit one smaller one, like the Zastava N-PAP AK type or the Bushmaster Carbon 15 AR-15 type, along with a bona fide guitar?

I'm afraid guitars are too deep to allow it, but what do I know about guitars?

Hilariously, reviews for all guitar (and other instrument) cases intended to discreetly carry firearms are full of comments like "After El Mariachi and Desperado, everyone already assumes that there is a gun in all guitar cases."

And my personal favourite: "I was walking down the road with a rifle case in one hand and a guitar case in the other and someone actually asked me what kind of gun I had in the guitar case!"
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-29-2018 at 04:22 PM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 05:07 PM   #342
johndallman
Night Watchman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
I'm afraid guitars are too deep to allow it, but what do I know about guitars?
Electric guitars can be shallow enough for that, but need separate amplifiers and power. Acoustic guitars are usually too deep.
johndallman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 05:28 PM   #343
Žorkell
Icelandic - Approach With Caution
 
Žorkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Reykjavķk, Iceland
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
one of Thorkell's offerings
Dude! Of all the people here you have the least excuse to do that...
__________________
Žorkell Sigvaldason

Viking kittens | My photos | More of my photos
Žorkell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 05:31 PM   #344
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Žorkell View Post
Dude! Of all the people here you have the least excuse to do that...
Mea culpa, mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

Žorkell, of course.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 05:49 PM   #345
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Electric guitars can be shallow enough for that, but need separate amplifiers and power. Acoustic guitars are usually too deep.
In a full size instrument, around 4" and slightly over seems to be the standard depth. There is such a thing as a thin body design, yielding 3.25" deep guitars, no doubt with implications for the sound, but other than that, only the smaller 7/8, 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 size guitars for children are significantly thinner.

I note that a Zastava N-PAP with a Zhukov stock folded is functionally the size of a tenor ukulele and an MP7A1 PDW is short enough to make it almost wasteful to carry it in a full-sized guitar case. It's the size of a banjo or fiddle.

Indeed, the full-sized guitar cases can fit the modular SOCOM-issue Remington Mk21 Precision Sniper Rifle, which can be chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. Something to keep in mind for all the NPCs in the Juarez Valley, many of whom arrived with access to SOCOM/JSOC armouries, unit purchases and personal solutions for covert transportation of their chosen weapons.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-29-2018 at 07:26 PM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 11:53 PM   #346
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Suppressed Sniper Carbine in .458 SOCOM

For the intelligence team from 'the Activity'/Task Force Orange/'the Army of Northern Virginia' who are already in Mexico, a suppressed carbine firing a heavy subsonic round.

JSOC Wilson Combat Covert Suppressed M4 carbine, .458 SOCOM
Wilson Combat Upper Receiver on M4A1 Lower in .458 SOCOM
Dmg: 6d-1 pi+;
Acc: 6;
Range: 400/3,200;
Weight: 8.95/0.85;
RoF: 16*;
Shots: 7+1(3);
ST: 10†;
Bulk: -4;
Rcl: 3;
Cost: $3,500/$50;
Notes: Fine (Accurate); Fine Magazine (Very Reliable).


This is an M4A1 SOPMOD lower receiver mated with a .458 SOCOM, Recon SR Tactical upper from Wilson Combat, adjustable carbine length gas system with Lo-Profile gas block and a custom 10.5" match barrel threaded for a Wilson Combat SP Whisper quick-detach baffle suppressor (-3 Hearing, -1 Bulk, expensive, $1,200, 1.2 lb). It mounts a Magpul UBR stock with optional recoil pad, Magpul AFG-2 angled foregrip, a Wilson Combat TTU single-stage 4-lb trigger and Daniel Defense RIS II handguards that freefloat the barrel. The overall length is 28.5" with the stock collapsed, 31.5" with the stock extended. If the M4A1 lower receiver and SOPMOD Block II accessories are available to the buyer from unit stores, the price of the finished weapon is $1,000 less (Cost $2,500).

The carbine can mount a variety of optics, such as the Leupold Mark 8 1-8x24 CQBSS (Acc +0 to +3; rugged; expensive; Cost $3,900; Weight 1.5 lbs.) and a co-witnessing mini reflex sight like the Trijicon RMR. It is also usually equiped with IR laser designator and illuminator, like the AN/PEQ-15 or the LA-5A/PEQ ATPIAL, and sometimes with a tactical light.

The stats assume that the weapon is loaded with Underwood Ammunition 300 Grain Lehigh Match Solid .458 SOCOM (WPS 0.08; CPS $2.5). This counts as Match ammunition, for a +1 to Acc, already accounted for in the llisted stats. For the purposes of the bullet travel rules, treat the .458 SOCOM as a pistol round, i.e. 300 yards per second (this will do fine until 600 yards, after which the projectile will be travelling at sling bullet velocities anyway). With the short barrel and no flash suppressor, the noise and flash are very obvious when fired without the Wilson Combat SP Whisper suppressor (+2 to Vision and Hearing to detect).

The listed magazines are modified Lancer L5 AWM magazines, available through Wilson Combat, which hold 7 rounds of .458 SOCOM. They count as Fine Magazines. Standard USGI 30-rd magazines hold 10 .458 SOCOM rounds (Weight 9.15/1.05; Shots 10+1; Cost: /$40) and CMMG .223 caliber 42-rd magazines hold 15 .458 SOCOM rounds (Weight 10/1.9; Shots 15+1; Cost: /$55). Neither counts as a Fine magazine.

Because the weapon is built on an M4A1 lower, it is capable of fully automatic fire, but this is really not recommended. Not only will it be very hard on the barrel, it is also almost impossible to control. On full-auto, it has ST: 11†; Rcl 4.

The greatest advantage of the heavier caliber over a standard .223/5.56mm carbine is the performance with heavy subsonic rounds for suppressed use. Loaded with Buffalo Bore 500 grain jacketed round nose (WPS 0.1; CPS $2.75), the weapon is subsonic, -2 Hearing, and Acc 5; Dmg 4d pi++; Range 600/1,800; Weight 9.1/1. These subsonic rounds will cycle in full-auto, though selective fire remains a suboptimal choice. With 10-rd magazines loaded with the heavier subsonic rounds, Weight 9.35/1.25 and with the 15-rd magazines with subsonic rounds, Weight 10.3/2.2. For the purposes of the bullet travel rules, the subsonic rounds travel 200 yards per second (fine until 600 yards, after which it drops 50 yards velocity per second).
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-30-2018 at 04:51 AM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 12:43 AM   #347
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Undercover bags for concealing weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Personally, I like the squarish, classic attache case shape, at least if it's really slim. But I am open to any 'modern' design that appeals to my aesthetic sensibilities. Not to mention that Ms. Rubio's player may favour a different design* than I would, so it's good to explore options.

*Though, somehow, his preferences are not strong enough to find pictures of every piece of gear his character carries. They are, however, strong enough to object if the ones I pick aren't pretty enough.
That's pretty normal, I've found.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 05:22 AM   #348
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Undercover bags for concealing weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
That's pretty normal, I've found.
Ah, well, it's a decent division of labour, with the player having the most interest in equipment devoting the most time to it.

In retribution, I can present my character as merely tragically flawed, while the other characters come across as callous psychopaths, unbalanced lunatics or amoral monsters.

Though that might actually be because the other PCs are a Rogue's Gallery of budding supervillainy.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 05:54 AM   #349
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

I'm encountering an annoying artifact of the consolidation of Acc scores in 4e. Pretty much all hand-held grenade launchers have Acc 1.

The Saco Mk19 MOD 3 automatic grenade launcher has Acc 2, being a tripod-mounted weapon with about three times the velocity and much longer effective range.

My problem is that the M79 grenade launcher* is stated in multiple sources, ranging from the Vietnam War to Afghanistan in 2015, to have a longer effective range than the M203. Due to the shoulder stock and longer sight radius, as well as avoiding the awkward position of sights of the mounted M203, it is regarded as being functionally accurate to about twice the distance of the M203, i.e. 150 meters on a point target vs. 75 meters.

Interviews with SEALs and other JSOC personnel indicate that M79 grenadiers practise putting grenades into garbage cans at 150 meters, which they can do reliably under training conditions, but it appears that the M203 cannot be used that accurately.

Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces have kept the option of using M79s as back-up weapons, even as operators in each team have M203 under-barrel launchers. This doesn't appear to be an irrational dislike of the M203 launcher, which is, if anything, well regarded among SMU under JSOC as an addition to the firepower of small units, but rather a near universal belief that the M79 can simply be used more effectively at ranges over 100 yards.

Indeed, one DEVGRU operator insists that the MP7A1 PDW cannot be used with any effect at ranges over 150 yards and that he would always carry a backup M79 for that purpose if armed with the small PDW.

Granted, a cutting the M79 down into the 'Pirate Gun', a 11" to 13" OAL destructive device resembling a flintlock pistol, is very popular. This cannot possibly be any more accurate at long range than the M203. If it is regarded as such, it is probably the effect of the reflex sights which are usually mounted on them.

On the other hand, it would seem in line with usual GURPS conventions that a longer-barrelled, properly stocked grenade launcher had better Acc than one without these.

In a vacuum, I'd unhesitatingly give the M79 Acc 2. However, this would make it as effective at 300-400 yards as single shots from the Mk19 MOD 3, which doesn't seem realistic. I could really use more granularity.

Assuming that the bullet travel rules are in effect, meaning that the 40x43mmSR grenades will be suffering penalties against moving targets at ranges over 70 yards (while the 40x53mmSR grenades would not start being penalised for bullet travel until after 200 yards), would it seem to do more violence to suspension of disbelief to have the M79 share Acc with the larger, more flat-shooting automatic grenade launcher or the smaller, regarded as less effective at long-range M203?

And, yes, I am thinking about this because the DEVGRU operators who provide security for the advance intelligence support and are supposed to handle an extraction if one becomes necessary might well want to conceal M79 'Pirate Guns' under civilian clothing.

*Possibly the HK69 as well, though I have no sources for its combat accuracy or lack thereof.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 07:03 AM   #350
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
...
Interviews with SEALs and other JSOC personnel indicate that M79 grenadiers practise putting grenades into garbage cans at 150 meters, which they can do reliably under training conditions, but it appears that the M203 cannot be used that accurately....
TBH unless we increases Acc on grenade launchers full stop that going to be pretty hard. An open bin at 150 yards is going to be what -11 for range with another -1 or -2 for target? so -12 or -13! You are going to need those non combat bonuses with Acc 1!

Anyway I think your point about the M79 Sharing Acc with the Mk19 MOD 3 is fine, because as you say the latter will suffer less from the time to target rules.

So the latter will still perform better than the former at longer ranges despite sharing an Acc score.

A couple of thoughts occurs regarding the M203, you could decide that it counts a unsighted shooting and not allow AoA determined (although I would allow* aim maneuvers so as not to completely nerf the thing) or if you use "On target" maybe penalise aim rolls to take into account the issue with sights?


*ultimately this is just about finding a point's distinction between the two in terms of hitting stuff!

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-30-2018 at 07:23 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
federal agencies, hans-christian vortisch, high-tech, jade serenity, modern firepower, special ops

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.