Rapid Fire bonus and Rcl

[apoc527]

Originally Posted by Erling

It's simple. In reality some firearms are better with burst/full-auto than others. "Better" means "give steeper increase to your chance to hit at least once" AND "give steeper increase to your chance to hit more than once". GURPS models the latter, but not the former.

Ok, but don't we have this in the high-cyclic controlled burst rules? You get 3-4 rounds fired at Rcl 1. That's the height of "controllability."

Guns like the KRISS Vector also get Rcl 1 due to an ingenious and unique recoil absorption mechanism (that's probably not compatible with higher powered rounds).

A Rcl 2 weapon is already pretty darn controllable--maybe too much so, if you ask some folks who've shot a lot of automatic weapons.

It sounds like you want even less controllability than already present. Maybe you are seeking the rules from Tactical Shooting for firing rifles without a stock? I believe if you don't fire a shoulder weapon from the shoulder you end up with +1 Rcl. This will certainly make folded stock hip-fired AK-47s "uncontrollable."

If you are instead talking about the differences between two 5.56mm NATO assault rifles, I think that's well below GURPS resolution.

Otherwise, 7.62mm NATO already has Rcl 3 on most non-machineguns.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Well that a) seems to be specific to at most a few battle rifles (and should therefore be a quirk to those specific weapons, if it even is within GURPS resolution at all), and b) is the opposite of "better" where that means "give steeper increase to your chance to hit at least once".

Having automatic fire and Rcl greater than 2 is a pretty rare quality. Battle rifles, the automatic version of that monster 20mm anti-tank rifle, automatic shotguns firing slugs, and various weapons fired without their stocks are it, at least for HT. (I thought there'd be some automatic pistols too, but I didn't see any when I looked.)

Suggesting that all of these things are pretty bad at benefiting from autofire seems...plausible.

As for b), if the high-Rcl things are worse, then the non-high-Rcl things are better.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Also note that the M14 is still in service as a DM rifle, and most shooters with the M16/M4 are taught to basically never use burst anyway (or at least I was) for the exact same reasoning (which indicates to me that the difference in controlibility isn't that significant).

I would presume that automatic fire isn't relevant to the DM role (and seem to recall seeing that the DM rifles actually have that feature removed?), but for the rest that information is a large part of why I'm dubious of the M14 uncontrollability narrative. It points to 'and that's why autofire with the M16 will turn out to be good', which it seems it didn't so much.

Originally Posted by apoc527

It sounds like you want even less controllability than already present. Maybe you are seeking the rules from Tactical Shooting for firing rifles without a stock? I believe if you don't fire a shoulder weapon from the shoulder you end up with +1 Rcl. This will certainly make folded stock hip-fired AK-47s "uncontrollable."

Not quite. If you shoot from the shoulder without a stock, you get that. Shooting from the hip does have problems of its own (specifically, no sighted shooting possible) but not that one.

Originally Posted by apoc527

Otherwise, 7.62mm NATO already has Rcl 3 on most non-machineguns.

That Rcl 3 on its own doesn't get to the point at hand has been the point from the very first post.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by apoc527

Ok, but don't we have this in the high-cyclic controlled burst rules? You get 3-4 rounds fired at Rcl 1. That's the height of "controllability."

Guns like the KRISS Vector also get Rcl 1 due to an ingenious and unique recoil absorption mechanism (that's probably not compatible with higher powered rounds).

A Rcl 2 weapon is already pretty darn controllable--maybe too much so, if you ask some folks who've shot a lot of automatic weapons.

It sounds like you want even less controllability than already present. Maybe you are seeking the rules from Tactical Shooting for firing rifles without a stock? I believe if you don't fire a shoulder weapon from the shoulder you end up with +1 Rcl. This will certainly make folded stock hip-fired AK-47s "uncontrollable."

If you are instead talking about the differences between two 5.56mm NATO assault rifles, I think that's well below GURPS resolution.

Otherwise, 7.62mm NATO already has Rcl 3 on most non-machineguns.

Here's the simple way to say it. Take the idea, "if a gun is less controllable, shouldn't the follow-up shots be less likely to hit?" The question is asked because the follow-up shots hitting are represented, not only by additional hits for a high MoS, but also by the RoF bonus to hit with at least one shot. The idea is, "for guns with high RCL, should the RoF bonus be lower?"

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

...

Also note that the M14 is still in service as a DM rifle, and most shooters with the M16/M4 are taught to basically never use burst anyway (or at least I was) for the exact same reasoning (which indicates to me that the difference in controlibility isn't that significant).

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

..., but for the rest that information is a large part of why I'm dubious of the M14 uncontrollability narrative. It points to 'and that's why autofire with the M16 will turn out to be good', which it seems it didn't so much.....

I think the point is with the M14 (and other rifles that were FA and fired 7.62 Nato rounds).

Is it's not the M14 was "bad/uncontrollable" and the M16 "good/controllable", it that all the negative things about FA fire in 5.56 is worse with 7.62 (out of a rifle).

Its less comfortable to fire 7.62 on the shoulder in FA than 5.56, so fatigue and discomfort will kick in faster.

7.62 weighs more so your issues of ammunition and FA are made worse

Accuracy isn't inherently improved by much*, and if individual round recoil increases and if that has an greater impact on weapon control-ability** and accuracy the chances of follow on round hitting decreases anyway.

One imagines that the more powerful 7.62 will have increased negative effects on a barrel than 5.56 (but then 7.62 barrels are likely to be heavier anyway).

FA 7.62 in rifle seems to come with worse negatives without any significant increase in positives to off set them, than FA 5.56 in a rifle.

There also seems to be factor that rifles that can fire 7.62 in FA tend to have lower RoF than rifles that can fire 5.56mm (but this has several effects positive and negative, and the driving factors behind that could be down to several things).



Basically it's all sliding scales of benefits vs. sliding scales of negatives. And the fact that the uses for FA from M4's firing 5.56 are limited and come with trade offs, doesn't mean it's not overall worse M14's doing it with 7.62.





*obviously the 5.56 and 7.62 rounds have different ballistics, but there are lots of other competing factors here such as weapon, firer and a range of different rounds within the groupings '5.56' and '7.62'. Generally speaking you could say the 7.62 has longer range and greater energy, but those are positives that come with their own qualifiers.


** which is why the BAR weighs more the FN-FAL or M14, which is trade off in another direction.

So in GURPS from High tech terms you choices seem to be:

a 5.56mm FA rifle that weighs 7-8lbs with Rcl of 2

or a 7.62mm FA rifle that weighs 10-11lbs with a Rcl of 3

or a 7.62mm FA rifle that weighs 17lbs with a Rcl of 2




Thing is all three have had long enough records to be judged and assessed on, we could still be making BARs and firing 7.62 FA in rifle if we wanted. But we don't. Instead tending to fire 7.62 FA from other weapons in the squad.
I think we do that for a mix of the reasons above.

We still make and use the 'M14' in a newer version, but as pointed out it tends be used for SA or SS fire.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by McAllister

Here's the simple way to say it. Take the idea, "if a gun is less controllable, shouldn't the follow-up shots be less likely to hit?" The question is asked because the follow-up shots hitting are represented, not only by additional hits for a high MoS, but also by the RoF bonus to hit with at least one shot. The idea is, "for guns with high RCL, should the RoF bonus be lower?"

Isn't that double dipping though?

higher Rcl gives reduced likely hood of follow up shots, that counters the Rof Bonus which increases the likely hood

Say we're firing 12 rounds (+2 rof Bonus) of 5.56 and 12 rounds of 7.62 we'll say the 5.56 is Rcl 2 and the 7.62 is rcl 3 and everything else is equal.


the +2 bonus is enough to counter act the Rcl2 of one 5.56 round in the burst so if we split out each round in the burst and look at is chance to hit the progression per round in the burst is:

1st round is +2,
2nd round is +0 (+2 -Rclx1)
3rd is -2 and so on. (+2 -Rclx2)


but in the 7.62 with rcl is 3 the progression is as follows,

1st round is +2
2nd round is -1 (+2-Rclx1)
3rd round is -4 (+2-Rclx2)

so if the question is "if a gun is less controllable, shouldn't the follow-up shots be less likely to hit?, then yes as you increase Rcl that's what you get. (Rcl is a bit of a nebulous stat but it covers controlability of the weapon and round in combination)

[Tomsdad]

One other thing that I think is a huge factor here.

What is the best use of FA fire? When, and in what context is it most used and most useful?

We seem to be largely concentrating in shooting at individual targets and worrying about more than one round hitting in a fire fight.

But a weapon that is suited for that might not be weapon that is best suited for controlling and suppressing a crossroads 800 yards away, from a static prepared position. Different context, different trade offs etc that will mean different decision making processes behind what weapon you use

[Erling]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

While a slight overstatement, that's kind of the point. Descriptions of the M14's career and replacement with the M16 often talk about the M14 being uncontrollable in automatic fire as a specific factor. (I am not sure I buy this entirely, but it's certainly commonly stated.) And just reducing the chance of multiple hits as Rcl does doesn't really represent that when generating any hit is a higher concern.

Originally Posted by McAllister

Here's the simple way to say it. Take the idea, "if a gun is less controllable, shouldn't the follow-up shots be less likely to hit?" The question is asked because the follow-up shots hitting are represented, not only by additional hits for a high MoS, but also by the RoF bonus to hit with at least one shot. The idea is, "for guns with high RCL, should the RoF bonus be lower?"

Thanks, mates. That was the whole point.

Originally Posted by apoc527

It sounds like you want even less controllability than already present. Maybe you are seeking the rules from Tactical Shooting for firing rifles without a stock? I believe if you don't fire a shoulder weapon from the shoulder you end up with +1 Rcl. This will certainly make folded stock hip-fired AK-47s "uncontrollable."

If you are instead talking about the differences between two 5.56mm NATO assault rifles, I think that's well below GURPS resolution.

No and no. What I'm talking about is not "this gun's Rcl is too high/too low". What I'm talking about is that Rcl may have additional meaning system-wise. Take a big bore shotgun. Saw off the stock. Shorten the barrel. Lower its weight somehow. Load it with heavy high-powered slugs. Convert it into full-auto (doesn't matter how exactly, just assume it's possible) with RoF 9+. You'll end up with Rcl about 5+ or 6+. Now shoot it at RoF 9. Voila! You get +2 Rapid Fire bonus. Just as good as if you'd have shooting M4 carbine. Yes, it's much more likely to score multiple hits with M4. But overall bonus to hit with at least one projectile will be the same. And it feels wrong to me.

It has nothing to do with the first shot in a burst (which, as Hans noted, is as likely to score a hit as a semi-auto shot), as first shot cannot logically benefit from Rapid Fire. Thus, Rapid Fire bonus affects chance to hit with at least one of sprayed bullet.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What does the M14 do that warrants special treatment then? It's just a rotating-bolt gas-operated magazine-fed rifle, as far as I know. Rcl 3 already means that you aren't going to hit with as many rounds as you would if the Rcl was lower, and the rapid fire modifier isn't going to be enough to fully compensate for that (and at the weapon's full RoF you'll expend your magazine in two seconds anyway, making effective RoF much lower). Making the rapid fire modifier only +1 regardless of RoF seems to be defeating any purpose of firing it on automatic at all.

M14 is not a special case. I just wanted to bring into focus that in GURPS it's a good idea to shoot battle rifles at full RoF (since you're more likely to hit at least once), although in reality it was highly unrecommended.

I don't mean that it's a good idea to shoot M16 full-auto in reality. Still, RoF 9 can be described as consecutive 3 short bursts, and possibly it's easier to handle 3 quick bursts while firing assault rifle than while firing battle rifle.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

b) is the opposite of "better" where that means "give steeper increase to your chance to hit at least once".

Sure. Because battle rifles have more harsh recoil. Intermediate cartridges and assault rifles became popular, among other things, due to better controllability, thus they're what is better. I mean, within Rapid Fire bonus framework.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Isn't that double dipping though?

higher Rcl gives reduced likely hood of follow up shots, that counters the Rof Bonus which increases the likely hood

Say we're firing 12 rounds (+2 rof Bonus) of 5.56 and 12 rounds of 7.62 we'll say the 5.56 is Rcl 2 and the 7.62 is rcl 3 and everything else is equal.


the +2 bonus is enough to counter act the Rcl2 of one 5.56 round in the burst so if we split out each round in the burst and look at is chance to hit the progression per round in the burst is:

1st round is +2,
2nd round is +0 (+2 -Rclx1)
3rd is -2 and so on. (+2 -Rclx2)


but in the 7.62 with rcl is 3 the progression is as follows,

1st round is +2
2nd round is -1 (+2-Rclx1)
3rd round is -4 (+2-Rclx2)

so if the question is "if a gun is less controllable, shouldn't the follow-up shots be less likely to hit?, then yes as you increase Rcl that's what you get. (Rcl is a bit of a nebulous stat but it covers controlability of the weapon and round in combination)

That ordering of hits doesn't actually mean anything and really doesn't correspond to the order of shots fired. It's true that the chance of generating the first hit via RoF rules is the same roll at +2...but that's not the chance to hit with the first shot, which can't possibly be at any bonus for the subsequent shots. That's the chance to hit with at least one of the shots out of the entire set fired, and the +2 bonus must be entirely a function of hitting with shots after the first fired.

[apoc527]

I am starting to suspect that we are really talking about a weapon's MinST more than Rcl or RoF bonus. With Erling's example Doomshotgun, that hypothetical weapon almost certainly has a MinST of 12 or higher. That means that an average ST 10 man is immediately at -2 to shoot it. It's also going to have monster Rcl (like 5+). The -2 from insufficient ST will cancel out the Rapid Fire bonus and hitting with more than one shot is highly unlikely (need a minimum MoS of 5!). That's "uncontrollable!"

If you look at the HT weapon tables, most modern-ish 5.56mm weapons have MinST 8 or 9. That number represents "controllability" about as well as anything. An FN-FAL, OTOH, has a MinST of 10--definitely less controllable unless of average ST.

The M14 has MinST 10, the M16 has MinST 8.

I believe I understand your concern and I don't think the MinST argument addresses it, but it's still something. I think the real issue is the one roll used to completely resolve a burst. You lose a bit of detail for playability, which is definitely fine with me.

Also, I know you vehemently disagree, but there is a built-in reason to not fire long bursts with an M14: because of the higher Rcl, you will simply waste more ammunition. That ammunition is heavier and you carry less of it. So short bursts provide you with the ability to hit more than once and conserve ammo. That's why you use them. Always shooting at max RoF only ever makes sense if you have unlimited ammo.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by apoc527

I am starting to suspect that we are really talking about a weapon's MinST more than Rcl or RoF bonus. With Erling's example Doomshotgun, that hypothetical weapon almost certainly has a MinST of 12 or higher. That means that an average ST 10 man is immediately at -2 to shoot it. It's also going to have monster Rcl (like 5+). The -2 from insufficient ST will cancel out the Rapid Fire bonus and hitting with more than one shot is highly unlikely (need a minimum MoS of 5!). That's "uncontrollable!"

But minST is unrelated to number of shots fired. You'd also be at -2 to hit with a single shot.

Originally Posted by apoc527

Also, I know you vehemently disagree, but there is a built-in reason to not fire long bursts with an M14: because of the higher Rcl, you will simply waste more ammunition. That ammunition is heavier and you carry less of it. So short bursts provide you with the ability to hit more than once and conserve ammo. That's why you use them. Always shooting at max RoF only ever makes sense if you have unlimited ammo.

That's true, but not part of the controllability argument.