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 01-17-2021, 01:21 PM   #21
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Gurps: The Mandalorian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
A

Alternatively they could be considered stocked pistols ('pistol-carbines').
Only if the stocks were used (which they aren't).
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2021, 05:03 AM   #22
borithan
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default Re: Gurps: The Mandalorian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Yes, they were usually called blaster "carbines" in previous material but they are too small and/or spend too much time with their stocks folded to be be what I'd actually call a carbine. The only consistant feature to RW weapons called "carbines" is that they are short rifles by the standards of the time.
The British referred to sub-machine guns as "machine carbines" until after WW2, including the prototype predecessor to the Sterling the E-11 is based on. I think they had switched to referring to them as a sub-machine gun by the time the Sterling was actually issued though (though I have seen a suggestion that semi-automatic versions were referred to as "carbines").

I would have to agree that by definition that anything you would call an SMG should be capable of automatic fire. Now, if you are going by sources external to the films, some sources have said the E-11 is capable of automatic fire, but we never see that demonstrated on screen. Presuming that they are not you are then left as defining them as "pistols" or something else. Given the above I would argue that the only thing that truly defined a "carbine" is that it is not as long as a full rifle and bigger than a pistol, and it would appear to be exactly that.

On a practical side for filming, 1) unfolding the stock would have interfered with the armour the actors were wearing, 2) if we are being totally honest the armour doesn't look like it gives any good places to brace any stock and get your face in the right position anyway and 3) a lot of the background characters quite prossibly had rubber replicas, which probably would not have been moulded with movable stocks.
borithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.