[Guns] What does accuracy represent?

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

What would be the reason for this?

The reason bolt-actions tend to be the most accurate action type (not actually true - rolling blocks can be just as accurate) is that their bolts lock up very consistently and positively as a rule.

As for the OP's question, Acc is probably best thought of as 'practical accuracy' - how tight a group the weapon will let you shoot in good yet practical conditions. So it's not how well the weapon will shoot when clamped to a bench, though that's part of it. It assumes iron sights and familiarity with the weapon and its foibles.

Acc has nothing to do with range, which is measured by 1/2D range and max range. GURPS assumes that (almost) all weapons' accuracy degrades over range at the same rate - they all use the same size/speed/range table.

[solidsingularity]

Originally Posted by Rupert

As for the OP's question, Acc is probably best thought of as 'practical accuracy' - how tight a group the weapon will let you shoot in good yet practical conditions. So it's not how well the weapon will shoot when clamped to a bench, though that's part of it. It assumes iron sights and familiarity with the weapon and its foibles.

If Acc is how tight its group is the why does the AI AW a sup MOA gun have the same Acc as the m82a1 wich is a 2 to 1 MOA gun?
Alos why does the Remington 700 a bolt action rifle have the same accuracy as the FN Minimi an open Bolt machine gun?

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Rupert

The reason bolt-actions tend to be the most accurate action type (not actually true - rolling blocks can be just as accurate) is that their bolts lock up very consistently and positively as a rule.

So basically simplicity and solidity of the mechanical action? Thanks, that makes sense. And rolling blocks would also be mechanically simple and solid? ...just looked up a video, and yeah, that's a very simple mechanism, and looks pretty solid.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Rupert

As for the OP's question, Acc is probably best thought of as 'practical accuracy' - how tight a group the weapon will let you shoot in good yet practical conditions. So it's not how well the weapon will shoot when clamped to a bench, though that's part of it. It assumes iron sights and familiarity with the weapon and its foibles.

For what it's worth, I used both a modeling and a curve fit approach to look at bench-rest MoA claimed for weapons vs Acc and found a very good correlation. I summarized the results here.

The rules-based derivation of maximum possible skill for a weapon found in Tactical Shooting was the modeling version of this.

It will certainly get you in the ballpark.

Most times of course, the rate-limit to accuracy has nothing to do with the weapon. It's the operator. I've found many GURPS games where that's not the case, though, including a notable Black Ops game where lacking such an upper bound my wife's character could (seemingly, and with a slight exaggeration) thread a needle at well over 1,000 yards with a .45ACP.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Most times of course, the rate-limit to accuracy has nothing to do with the weapon. It's the operator. I've found many GURPS games where that's not the case, though, including a notable Black Ops game where lacking such an upper bound my wife's character could (seemingly, and with a slight exaggeration) thread a needle at well over 1,000 yards with a .45ACP.

That's mostly a question of Rule of Cool: Yes, hardware sets a limit, but you ignore that in stories where the hardware is really just a way for a leading character to express their ridiculous expertise. It isn't unique to games, or to guns. The example that races to mind is Bullitt . . . there's no way a Ford Mustang GT Fastback can out-race a 440 Magnum Dodge Charger, but the story calls for it, so that's what happens.

[solidsingularity]

Originally Posted by Kromm

That's mostly a question of Rule of Cool: Yes, hardware sets a limit, but you ignore that in stories where the hardware is really just a way for a leading character to express their ridiculous expertise. It isn't unique to games, or to guns. The example that races to mind is Bullitt . . . there's no way a Ford Mustang GT Fastback can out-race a 440 Magnum Dodge Charger, but the story calls for it, so that's what happens.

This makes sense especially for GUPRS Basic, And undoubtedly the right call for 80% to 90% of games.
That being said I would love to see a supplement that gave a more granular treatment on guns that dived into their different divergent qualities and that Increase the resolution on weapon stats.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by solidsingularity

This makes sense especially for GUPRS Basic, And undoubtedly the right call for 80% to 90% of games.
That being said I would love to see a supplement that gave a more granular treatment on guns that dived into their different divergent qualities and that Increase the resolution on weapon stats.

If you want better resolution, consider something like this. As noted at the beginning, it's meant for use in conjunction with Douglas Cole's (yes, the same one who posted earlier in the thread) "On Target" article from Pyramid #3/77.

Originally Posted by solidsingularity

Are there any rules that prevent them from being used for precision work?

Not that I'm aware of, and there really shouldn't be (unless you're specifically aiming for niche protection). As previously noted, the origins of the (in)famous .50 cal sniper rifle were in using single shots from machine guns with mounted scopes on them.

[solidsingularity]

Originally Posted by Varyon

If you want better resolution, consider something like this. As noted at the beginning, it's meant for use in conjunction with Douglas Cole's (yes, the same one who posted earlier in the thread) "On Target" article from Pyramid #3/77.

I will look into that.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Not that I'm aware of, and there really shouldn't be (unless you're specifically aiming for niche protection). As previously noted, the origins of the (in)famous .50 cal sniper rifle were in using single shots from machine guns with mounted scopes on them.

The M2 is an inherently more accurate system than the FN Minimi, as it fires from a close bolt rather than an open bolt. The M2 Is also a heavy machine gun fired from a fixed tripod rather than a light machine gun fired from a Deployable bipod. M249 is a 12 MoA gun, I could not find any direct numbers for the M2, the M82A1 Which as you have said it was inspired by the M2 is a 3 MoA gun bumped up to 1 MoA with match grade ammunition.
So I find it hard to believe that the FN Minimi Has the same base accuracy as the Remington 700.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by solidsingularity

I will look into that.

The M2 is an inherently more accurate system than the FN Minimi, as it fires from a close bolt rather than an open bolt. The M2 Is also a heavy machine gun fired from a fixed tripod rather than a light machine gun fired from a Deployable bipod. M249 is a 12 MoA gun, I could not find any direct numbers for the M2, the M82A1 Which as you have said it was inspired by the M2 is a 3 MoA gun bumped up to 1 MoA with match grade ammunition.
So I find it hard to believe that the FN Minimi Has the same base accuracy as the Remington 700.

"12 MOA" M249 is definitely not a factory new Minimi, think about what that entails for a moment. It means that the impact area is 1 foot cone at 100 meters. It means it's 4 feet cone at 400 meters. 6 feet cone at 600 meters. It means that you cannot target a man-sized target intentionally at common infantry ranges, and it means that it is almost impossible to score a hit upon a target 600 meters away (on the nearby mountain like in Afghanistan for example) without a lucky accident. There's no reason to adopt, let alone design, such a system because you can as easily design a system capable of rifle accuracy, which would be infinitely more useful for suppression, because nobody is more suppressed when they're dead, and nobody is more scared of your volume of fire than when they witness their comrades drop on the ground injured or dead, and if dispersion is needed, it can be provided by MG's operator, not the system.

I searched around for M249 accuracy and got results ranging from 6 MOA down to 1.5 MOA, depending on the condition of the weapon and the barrel (Most M249s in US service for example are extremely beaten up). HT actually models such issues on HT85 - sustained fire with MG drops it's acc and malf by 2 (acc 5 minimi becomes 3).

So, in that sense, FN Minimi is comparable to Remington 700 if it was treated and maintained well from MOA standpoint. Is this a realism issue? Not really, a sniper can use whatever he wants and there are millions of weapon designs with millions of pros and cons. If a sniper chooses Rem 700 over FN Minimi, it means Rem 700 is better for his work, not that it is better overall. If a sniper chooses MINIMI, it also means it's better for his work, but that doesn't mean it's better overall. I won't go into details why it is this and that because it'll be a long post.

Is it a balance issue? Not really. Rem 700 costs MUCH less (meaning it can be fine accurate for cheaper), is MUCH lighter, comes in MANY calibers, has LESS ST requirements and LESS BULK. It also has more damage when we compare Minimi's 7.62x51 version with Rem 700 in 7.62x51.

In the end, if your players snipe with LMGs, it is not an issue at all from any perspective except personal taste, and GURPS mechanics already provide reasonable drawbacks to doing so without making things unreasonable.