Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Correct. I pretty much summed it up here. Short version: Don't bring a shotgun to a full-auto rifle fight. You'll lose.

Indeed.

But for my campaign, full-auto rifles aren't going to feature much. Massachussetts isn't fond of guns or gun-owners.

The PCs just met themselves some scary creatures and they are considering buying shotguns and rifled slugs. If that doesn't work, maybe the next step will be M1As semi-automatic rifles (or equivalent), but I think there are all sorts of legal restrictions inside Boston on anything that even looks like an 'assault weapon'.

While I've got you, what's the breakpoint for Bulk -4?

I was happy to see that the MK 14 MOD 0 EBR didn't meet it, since that would have been out of whack, but there are some other guns that seems might qualify.

The M4 in all its myriad forms is Bulk -4, for example, and a lot of the civilian-legal models have 16.1" barrels and a total length of 34"+. The G36K and the G3KA4, by comparison, are slightly smaller than that and about equal in size to other Bulk -4 guns.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The M4 in all its myriad forms is Bulk -4, for example, and a lot of the civilian-legal models have 16.1" barrels and a total length of 34"+. The G36K and the G3KA4, by comparison, are slightly smaller than that and about equal in size to other Bulk -4 guns.

The M4 is significantly lighter than those, a couple of pounds make a difference.
It's remarkably well balanced, you could fire it in one hand with your arm extended holding it out like a pistol, though you really shouldn't.

When compared to the M16, the M4 is also noticeably easier to run around with, since the M16 is -5, it makes perfect sense to me for the M4 to be -4.

[Kromm]

There's no easy "break point," as Bulk depends on several considerations:

• Weapon SM matters. Length usually decides this, but weapons can pick up a point or even two points of SM and thus worse Bulk by virtue of being blocky thanks to long magazines protruding below or to one side, big carrying handles on top, etc.
• Weight matters just as much or more. Heavy, short-barreled weapons frequently have more punishing Bulk than light, long-barreled ones.
• There's a fudge factor for design, with bullpups getting less-severe Bulk than non-bullpups at the same overall length and weight, and certain easy-to-handle weapons with foregrips sometimes getting a little grace.
• There's a fudge factor for balance, with weapons that have a good reputation for easy handling being given a break.

While all the Bulk scores in High-Tech were worked out from SM and weight initially, I know that playtest discussion and author debate resulted in these fudge factors of which I speak. Thus, it's quite possible for a long, long rifle that's very light and well-balanced, with a short, recessed magazine, to have several points better Bulk than a short, short rifle that's heavy, poorly balanced, and has a huge magazine sticking out the bottom.

In even dweebier terms, Bulk basically reflects moment of inertia (I):

I = cML²

c = A constant that reflects the weapon's form factor.
M = Weapon's mass.
L = Weapon's overall length.

Bulk is, to within a scaling factor (F), equal to -log(I). Thanks to the way logs work, that amounts to:

Bulk = F - log(c) - log(M) - 2log(L)

The first two terms contain my fudge factors, while the third considers mass and the fourth is related to SM.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

When compared to the M16, the M4 is also noticeably easier to run around with, since the M16 is -5, it makes perfect sense to me for the M4 to be -4.

It makes perfect sense to me as well. Any system that made those two equivalent would feel inelegant, since the difference between them is an important real world consideration.

The fact remains that the G36KV and the M4A1 SOPMOD are within a half pound of each other in weight and the specific sights and other accessories that are installed are far more important than the miniscule weight differences between the two weapons.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Weight matters just as much or more. Heavy, short-barreled weapons frequently have more punishing Bulk than light, long-barreled ones.

Could it be that the huge Bulk penalty (-6) of the FN FAL as compared to other weapons of similar or greater length is mostly due to it weighting more than the longer bolt action weapons I compared it to?

That still doesn't tell us why the M14 and the FN FAL don't have the same Bulk. Both weapons weight about the same (GURPS lists them with a 0.1 lbs. weight difference, other sources have the FN FAL being lighter in some cases) and the FN FAL is marginally shorter. Is the design of the European weapon truly so much worse than the US weapon?

Former users of the FN FAL (mostly in its SLR incarnation) almost universally prefer it to the M14, at least those I've spoken with. Even accounting for personal preferences, I don't think that there exist a strong enough case for a game system to make a weapon that costs half as much just plainly better than a more expensive one that enjoys at least an equal a real world reputation.

Originally Posted by Kromm

There's a fudge factor for design, with bullpups getting less-severe Bulk than non-bullpups at the same overall length and weight, and certain easy-to-handle weapons with foregrips sometimes getting a little grace

Wait, do bullpups get a less severe Bulk than other weapons of the same length and weight?

I would have thought it was exactly the opposite. The bullpup design allows for a shorter weapon with the same barrel length, but the awkwardness of having the magazine protrude behind the trigger guard translated into a higher Bulk than for weapons without such protrusions. The absolute Bulk of a bullpup might be lower than a conventional weapon, yes, but not lower than a conventional weapon which was somehow designed to be equally short (probably by sacrificing barrel length).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Wait, do bullpups get a less severe Bulk than other weapons of the same length and weight?

They should. Or at least a lower bulk than weapons of comparable barrel length (not overall length).

I would have thought it was exactly the opposite. The bullpup design allows for a shorter weapon with the same barrel length, but the awkwardness of having the magazine protrude behind the trigger guard translated into a higher Bulk than for weapons without such protrusions. The absolute Bulk of a bullpup might be lower than a conventional weapon, yes, but not lower than a conventional weapon which was somehow designed to be equally short (probably by sacrificing barrel length).

I thought the main reported problem with bullpups is that they are much harder to tactically reload. The beer-can method would seemingly not work. I actually can't imagine how you could reload one and still keep it shouldered.

[Langy]

I thought the main reported problem with bullpups is that they are much harder to tactically reload. The beer-can method would seemingly not work. I actually can't imagine how you could reload one and still keep it shouldered.

I'd think it'd depend upon the magazine design, really. The FN P90 looks like it could be reloaded from the shoulder, for example. Maybe the G11, too, but I'm not sure on either of those, and I've never fired either of them. Even the AUG looks like it might be reloadable from the shoulder.

Mind you, it'd probably be a lot more comfortable to reload all of those when not from the shoulder, though.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

They should. Or at least a lower bulk than weapons of comparable barrel length (not overall length).

Yes, but that's just because they have less overall length. I don't see why a bullpup should get lower Bulk than a weapon of the same overall length.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I thought the main reported problem with bullpups is that they are much harder to tactically reload. The beer-can method would seemingly not work. I actually can't imagine how you could reload one and still keep it shouldered.

I saw at least one article in a gun-rag (Special Weapons for Military and Law Enforcement, I believe) where a Lt. Col was quoted as saying that the US military was reluctant to consider bullpup rifles because of perceived difficulties of manuoevering with them in built-up terrain.

Supposedly, rapid target engagement from a prone position as well as quicly changing position was harder with the magazine behind the pistol grip than when it was in front.

*Shrug*

All I know that bullpup paintball guns are uncomfortable to handle, but no more so than the typical gravity-assisted feed design. As far as I can tell, no matter where the magazine is, it's mostly a matter of familiarity and some positions being more comfortable than others depending on the specific design.

Bullpups are shorter and so should probably come out with less Bulk than a gun with the same barrel length (all other things being equal), but I dunno how being a bullpup design actually makes guns easier to handle than a gun of the same total length.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Could it be that the huge Bulk penalty (-6) of the FN FAL as compared to other weapons of similar or greater length is mostly due to it weighting more than the longer bolt action weapons I compared it to?

It might have hit a weight breakpoint, sure. It's quite possible that -5.45 rounded down to -5 and -5.55 rounded up to -6. Not those specific numbers, but you get the idea. At any rate, an extra -1 isn't "huge." It's a nominal difference in a given class, more color than effect.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Former users of the FN FAL (mostly in its SLR incarnation) almost universally prefer it to the M14, at least those I've spoken with.

Here in Canada, it was much loved, but its easy handling wasn't why . . . it was often called things like "a clunky dog of a rifle," and cussed out for its poor ergonomics. It was loved mainly because (1) it seemed to withstand beatings better than the M14 it competed with, and (2) it hit harder than the M16 it was replaced with. Of course, its reliability might not have been sufficiently better to merit fine (reliable) in game terms; again, we have granularity to thank.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Wait, do bullpups get a less severe Bulk than other weapons of the same length and weight?

Yes. The center of mass is more exactly over the trigger hand, and less of the gun – not just horizontal gun, but vertical magazine – is poking forward of you to get in your way. Handling is better, especially in close quarters.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I would have thought it was exactly the opposite. The bullpup design allows for a shorter weapon with the same barrel length, but the awkwardness of having the magazine protrude behind the trigger guard translated into a higher Bulk than for weapons without such protrusions.

No. That might affect reloading, but not handling. Whatever some bigwig somewhere said, the world generally agrees that bullpups are handier in tight places, which is why vehicle crews have been issued them worldwide. There's a lot of failure to recognize this thanks to the crap that was the SA80, though.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It might have hit a weight breakpoint, sure. It's quite possible that -5.45 rounded down to -5 and -5.55 rounded up to -6. Not those specific numbers, but you get the idea. At any rate, an extra -1 isn't "huge." It's a nominal difference in a given class, more color than effect.

I suppose. But GURPS granularity is enough to make that -1 fairly significant, all the same. It means that the FN FAL is in the same class as SAWs and sniper rifles when it comes to concealing it or using it for CQB. Granted, the FN FAL was never designed for either, but neither was the M14, so it seems unfair to penalise one and not the other.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Here in Canada, it was much loved, but its easy handling wasn't why . . . it was often called things like "a clunky dog of a rifle," and cussed out for its poor ergonomics. It was loved mainly because (1) it seemed to withstand beatings better than the M14 it competed with, and (2) it hit harder than the M16 it was replaced with. Of course, its reliability might not have been sufficiently better to merit fine (reliable) in game terms; again, we have granularity to thank.

Would it be reasonable to say that the FN FAL/SLR is a famously rugged weapon (HT p. 80)?