Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles

[Icelander]

I was picking out guns for people who might want to put down some seriously Bad Things, but still have to consider CQB suitability. That led me to believe that I might want a short-barrelled battle rifle, like the Crane MK 14 or the G3KA3.

Then I noticed that the Crane MK 14 had Bulk -4*. Which is fine, I guess. That's what it's designed for, CQB. But when the G3KA4 has Bulk -5*, it does seem a little odd.

For reference, the Crane MK 14 is 35" long with the stock at maximum retraction. It has an 18" barrel.

In comparison, the G3KA4 has a 12.5" barrel and is a whole 21" long with the stock collapsed.

I know that Bulk doesn't just reflect size. It's also an abstract number for how easy a gun is to wield*. But what horrible design flaw can so cripple a shortened carbine to make it no more handy in close-quarters than the Winchester 70 African, also Bulk -5? I mean, the Winchester 70 has a 24" barrel! And is almost 45" long! How can these weapons be close enough in handling that the difference is below game resolution? Especially since the 4" cut from the barrel of the M14 translated into a lower Bulk even though many other 18" barrel are still Bulk -5.

Is it really realistic to say that the G3KA4, despite being much shorter than the Crane MK 14 (and every other gun at Bulk -5, come to that), should have a higher Bulk?

Come to that, the FN FAL is 43" long and has a 21" barrel. I'll grant that it's no carbine, but it gets Bulk -6. That is the same as dedicated sniper weapons such as the AI AW or the PSG-1. By way of comparison, all other full-length battle rifles are assigned Bulk -5. The M-14 is longer, at 46" and with a 22" barrel, but it still gets a lower Bulk. Even the Springfield M1903, rarely considered a close-quarter battle firearm, is Bulk -5. That's right. A vintage WWI bolt-action rifle that for many years was used as a sniper rifle is a better CQB weapon than the FN FAL in GURPS.

Why do these two weapons get such short shrift? Is the difference between them and their larger cousins really so great that it justifies bumping them up an effective size category when it comes to hiding them? Are they really worse as CQB weapons than much longer weapons?

*Which kind of makes it weird when it's used for Holdout, but I digress.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Just as a note, and probably not terribly helpfull here: You should figure length with the stock at full extension, as these weapons have their bulk reduced by 1 (Among other effects) when the stock is collapsed (Folding Stock, HT160).

[Ubiquitous]

I'll try to contribute a little before the actual gun-nuts get here and I can bow out;

1) The folding stock point does make a big difference in the CQB aspect; the G3KA4's a bit big at Bulk 5, but if you want to reduce how much it's going to get in the way (Bulk's function, right?) than you'd fold the stock as a rule, at Bulk 4. I realize that'd a player-thing and you're talking about Bulk mechanics, but in this case I always thought the G3K was a rifle you'd use to make shots at range (hence the stock) but could fold over to use like an SMG whenever you got into a close-quarters fight (at Bulk 4 it's still bigger than (most of all?) SMGs, but that's the barrel/firepower there I think). Also, does GURPS handle Bulk like it does Size Modifiers? Is a Bulk 1 pistol between 3''-6'', a Bulk 2 pistol between 7''-12'', a Bulk 3 pistol (machine pistol or silenced or with a stock) 13''-18''? I know the G3K seems short with the stock collapsed, but add 12'' to that and now you've gone from 21'' to 33'; now you're within 12'' of the Winchester, and that might be what's bagging the G3K and Winchester in the same place.

But hey, me and my theories. Considering the people who A) work on GURPS and B) know their guns frequent here, this'll probably fall flat in a little bit.

2) Your considerations on CQB seem to be limited to size (which, yeah, SHOULD be considered as a prominent issue) but none of the other things that'd apply to that kind of tactical situation. The Springfield 1903 as compared to the FN FAL; in a room full of targets, the FN FAL has the ability to hose down all three, whereas the Springfield will have to spend a second taking each one. For CQB the FN FAL is just bulky, it looks like; some weapons just aren't made to considering close-quarters.

^ That one's more or less irrelevant to your mechanics question, just ignore that if you want.

EDIT: Removed 'If so then the system might just end up placing the G3K with the Winchester 70 over a one-two inch difference between the two.' after I realized I was talking about adding 12 inches to something to logicize a difference of 24 inches.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ubiquitous

1) The folding stock point does make a big difference in the CQB aspect; the G3KA4's a bit big at Bulk 5, but if you want to reduce how much it's going to get in the way (Bulk's function, right?) than you'd fold the stock as a rule, at Bulk 4.

Agreed. But all other guns with 12.5 inch barrels have a lower Bulk. Why penalise this one?

I've held an airsoft replica of one and it certainly did not feel any more cumbersome than a M-4.

If there is a real world reason for why a real G3KA4 is much more cumbersome than another weapon with a longer barrel and larger frame, I'll accept that reason. I know that replicas and a few practice shots don't make me an expert. But it just seems so strange to allow guns that are similar in design but have 18" barrels to benefit from Bulk -4 while the 12.5" barrel of the G3KA4 is not enough to reduce its Bulk.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Agreed. But all other guns with 12.5 inch barrels have a lower Bulk. Why penalise this one?

Err... Barrel length is irrelevant. Depending on weapon configuration, you could have a 20" barrel in a weapon that's more compact (And less "bulky") than a 12" barrel.

That said, I suspect giving the MK 14 MOD 0 EBR Bulk -4* is a mistake. With the stock retracted, that means it would have a lower bulk than any M4 variant, even the extra-short MK 18 MOD 0. In fact, that puts it on the same level as any of the MP5 or UMP variants (Even the MP5K!), or a P90 when you collapse the stock. Despite being longer and significantly heavier. It would probably feel more right at Bulk -5*.

[trans]

For putting down Bad Things, how about a Winchester Model 1895 in .405 Win? Not exactly the most handy of beasts, but I suppose you could saw it off. And they are apparently even making them again now.

[Ubiquitous]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Agreed. But all other guns with 12.5 inch barrels have a lower Bulk. Why penalise this one?

But it just seems so strange to allow guns that are similar in design but have 18" barrels to benefit from Bulk -4 while the 12.5" barrel of the G3KA4 is not enough to reduce its Bulk.

Uh, you'd have to check this because I'm without HT at the moment, but I know that GURPS does alternate stats for weapons with alternate configuration; the G3K may have a shorter barrel length listed, but it may be statted for a longer barrel and hence a larger Bulk.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Err... Barrel length is irrelevant. Depending on weapon configuration, you could have a 20" barrel in a weapon that's more compact (And less "bulky") than a 12" barrel.

It's hardly irrelevant. One of the more common modifications for weapons that are meant to be used in CQB is shortening the barrel.

With the M-14, a design that shortens the barrel from 22" to 18" was given a Bulk of one less than the base weapon. With the G3, a design that shortens the barrel from 17.7 inches to 12.4 inches was not assigned a lower Bulk than the basic weapon.

This is puzzling to me.

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

That said, I suspect giving the MK 14 MOD 0 EBR Bulk -4* is a mistake. With the stock retracted, that means it would have a lower bulk than any M4 variant, even the extra-short MK 18 MOD 0. In fact, that puts it on the same level as any of the MP5 or UMP variants (Even the MP5K!), or a P90 when you collapse the stock. Despite being longer and significantly heavier. It would probably feel more right at Bulk -5*.

I agree with this.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ubiquitous

Uh, you'd have to check this because I'm without HT at the moment, but I know that GURPS does alternate stats for weapons with alternate configuration; the G3K may have a shorter barrel length listed, but it may be statted for a longer barrel and hence a larger Bulk.

True, the basic statline for the G3 is for the G3A3. But the stats for a G3KA4 are given in the book as well.

[Ubiquitous]

Originally Posted by Icelander

True, the basic statline for the G3 is for the G3A3. But the stats for a G3KA4 are given in the book as well.

Alright, just saying it mighta been that.