[Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

[Agemegos]

A long time ago in a land far away there was an artist working on a comic set in my perennial SF setting, FLAT BLACK. I liked Max, and enjoyed working with him, but his background was in manga, and his habit was to draw futuristic pistols the size and shape of a hair-drier. They looked powerful to him. I pointed out to him that we can already make huge pistols such as the Desert Eagle, and that nobody uses them because they are too big, too heavy, and recoil too much. Futuristic technology isn't going to give us the ability to build bigger pistols. We can already do that. It's going to let us build deadlier weapons that are more reliable and safer and have larger ammo capacities but that we can still carry all day on our belt, draw and use while we are in a cockpit, wear under our jackets without freaking the civilians, hide in a coat pocket, or carry in a purse. The power and range of sidearms and smallarms are constrained by the ergonomics of wearing or carrying them, drawing them, presenting and aiming them, and firing them controllably. Future-tech pistols will be no larger and may be smaller than the service pistols, police pistols, pocket pistols, and holdout pistols of today. {Note also that an M4 carbine is smaller than a Garand, which is smaller than an '03 Springfield, which is smaller than a Kentucky rifle.}

GURPS is dedicated to reality checking, and one reflection of that is that its native way of acknowledging the range of sidearms is to include stats and descriptions for a great range of real guns &c. A system for representing guns more abstractly is not GURPS' preferred way of doing things. So, when I was running a ~TL10^ SF campaign Icelander, a GURPS stalwart, naturally felt that the way to treat the range of available smallarms was to make up a raft of different models, with manufacturer's brands, quirky model names and numbers, production and procurement histories, unique quirks and foibles &c. — in short, to write a whole fictitious TL10 "Adventuring Guns" for one particular TL10^ setting. I admire — I am awed by — his energy, but that isn't actually my preferred way of doing things. For a start, in that setting there is virtually no interstellar trade in weapons, so few manufacturers or models model is known on more than one of the thousand inhabited worlds. And to follow up I recognise in that setting ten different development levels each producing weapons with different methods and distinct levels of technical sophistication.

FLAT BLACK's native RPG was the long out-of-print ForeSight, which took a different approach. At each tech level (or, sometimes, half-integer tech level) there was a small collection of paradigmatic weapons of quite different types. For example, at TL 6 (its near-future TL) it offered the needle pistol, cone pistol, cone rifle, auto cone rifle, and self-designating heavy cone rifle, while at TL 7 (its STL space-travel TL) it offered the stun pistol, stun rifle, stun cannon, laspistol, lasrifle. And then there was a system of weapons modifications that you could apply (in combinations, if you desired) to produce "cheap", "quality", "heavy", "light", "target", "reliable", "old/rusty", or "cut-down" variants of the base weapon. The TL 5 "SL pistol" was a 1970-vintage 9mm service pistol. A "heavy SL pistol" was a .45, a "heavy, heavy SL pistol" was a Desert Eagle or such monster. A "light SL pistol" was a .380 or 7.65 police pistol, a "cut-down SL pistol" was a short-barreled nine with reduced ammo capacity, a "cut-down light SL pistol" was a pocket pistol (kriminal) in 7.65 or so. The same modifications could be applied at different TLs to different base weapons from the master table, producing service pistol, general officers' model/police, pocket pistol etc. versions of the "cone pistol", "laspistol", "DEXAX needle pistol", "TD laspistol", "stun pistol", and "projac laspistol". I was keen on the "heavy quality DEXAX needle pistol"; a friend swore by the "target, target, target-designating laser rifle".

{Like the excellent James Bond 007 RPG on which it was partly based, ForeSight had rules for concealment of various weapons in and draw of them from different carries, which I valued as giving player characters an interesting incentive to carry something other than the largest and most brutally effective weapons. The weapon modifications affected the weapons' Draw and Concealment stats in way I found satisfying.}

Now, supposing that we were do devise such a system for fictitious ultra-tech weapons in GURPS. What ergonomic paradigms should we aim at producing for future-tech small-arms and sidearms? Is a military service pistol and an infantry weapon the best base model to put in the master table?

And moving on to body armour, what are the ergonomic paradigms that ought to be represented at each technology. Concealable, flexible, heavy?

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

And moving on to body armour, what are the ergonomic paradigms that ought to be represented at each technology. Concealable, flexible, heavy?

I would assume that 'concealable' would have reduced coverage (shown in either a lower than base DR, or by using the partial coverage rules from LT/HT). So there should be an opposing trait, of as complete coverage as the makers can manage, giving no armour chinks or something like that in exchange for increased bulk (reflected perhaps by a DX penalty). There should definitely be light, standard, and heavy versions, with varying DR and weight (and probably price and concealability).

[weby]

First a minor counter argument to your "weapons keep getting smaller". I agree with you on the basic thing, but a lot of the latter changes have been due to change of the role of the base infantry, and note that things like sniper rifles have actually been creeping up in size again(.50bmg/.338Lapua/.300Magnum and similar cartridges have been replacing the previous lighter rifles) and so on. Further, the prevalence of carbines has caused also the increase in things like dedicated marksman rifles and such..

But then to the actual question:

For weapons it really depends on if you want to represent military or civilian self defense/hunting weapons as the base.

I would likely use a standard size pistol as the typical (like todays full size 9mm automatic pistols) and modify from there. you do not need that many different things due to the granularity of the GURPS system.

The rifles are a bit more problematic as they encompass things from light plinking rifles(todays light .22LR), shotguns, hunting rifles(light game), hunting rifles(heavy), hunting rifles(very heavy), pdws, carbines, dedicated marksmans rifles, sniper rifles, heavy automatic rifles, heavy sniper rifles, very heavy sniper rifles.. and so on.

And in the future for both the situation might change radically due to armor. Todays focus on the infantry carbine would likely change if the expected enemies started to be armored as seems more and more likely in the future if current trends continue. Thus a future where the default infantry rifle is a very heavy thing to punch through that armor instead of a lighter and lighter thing is also a possible future.

But anyway, I would likely make the default a rifle, not carbine. To represent a carbine it would then be short, pdw would be short+light and so on.. with the DMR type weapons being heavy, the proper sniper rifles double heavy.. also I would then add the automatic as a separate modifier.

The above kind of mostly assumes that the basic paradigm of infantry combat dies not change(that is low automation).

But if the situation of the battlefield is different.. like fifth wave transhuman space setting.. where the troopers are in power armor, function mostly as combat controllers and the actual fighting is done by cybershells.. then the likely trooper weapon would be something heavy and short ranged to be used as self defense thing only.

In such a setting the base weapon would be something like a grenade launcher/shothun that you can then modify to be different sizes/barrel lengths/magazine sizes and such..

TLDR; simplified: medium pistol (equivalent to todays 9mm auto like a glock 17), medium rifle(equivalent to todays 5.56 assault rifles).

Armor(simpliefied):
Thickless, hard/soft, full/partial, conceal/visible, powered/unpowered.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by weby

First a minor counter argument to your "weapons keep getting smaller". I agree with you on the basic thing, but a lot of the latter changes have been due to change of the role of the base infantry, and note that things like sniper rifles have actually been creeping up in size again(.50bmg/.338Lapua/.300Magnum and similar cartridges have been replacing the previous lighter rifles) and so on.

For specialist tasks - the standard sniper rifles haven't been changing in size, and still use 7.62x51mm, 7.62x54mmR, etc. There has been a creep in what some forces consider a 'special task' though.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Now, supposing that we were do devise such a system for fictitious ultra-tech weapons in GURPS. What ergonomic paradigms should we aim at producing for future-tech small-arms and sidearms? Is a military service pistol and an infantry weapon the best base model to put in the master table?

When my father passed a couple of years ago I inherited hs gun magazine subscriptions for however long they lasted. So right now I'm pretty well up on what the American gun industry tries to sell and maybe what the market wants to buy. Using arbitrary numbers I'd rate pistols as follows:

1. Special. Purposes competition, hunting, home defense. Barrel lengths might start at 5 inches in a heavy gun such as one with muzzle weights but more like 6" and up. No particular limit on bulk, barrel length or weight as people do not carry such guns in "normal" circumstances.

2. Largest of "normal carry" guns. Usual purpose is open carry in high threat environment. Military or special police. Things like a .45 ACP M1911a1. 5" barrel and weights of 1 kg/2 and 1/2 lbs to maybe 3 lbs.

3. "Medium" guns that are small and light enough to carry comfortably as a duty weapon with possible concealment but not optimized for concealment. A leading example would be the Glock 19. Barrel lengths will be around 4".

4. Concealed carry. Lightweight guns that _are_. designed for concealed carry. An old example would be the Walther PPK but guns of similar size are now availoale in 9 mm with 12 round magazines. New and hot in the US market.

5. Minimal guns. Concealment at any price. The contemporary example would be something like a Kel-tec .380. I have large hands (proportional to my size 12 feet) but while it would take my whole hand to cover a PPK laid flat on a table I can cover a Kel-tec with just my palm. Less than comfortable for most adult male users and use of smaller guns might not even be possible to use for such people.

This at least seperates pistols out by size and somewhat by appropriate purposes. Longarms are of course another atte rand I don't ahve common lengths and weights as ahndy in my head right now. I amya ddress those alter.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by weby

First a minor counter argument to your "weapons keep getting smaller". I agree with you on the basic thing…

Yeah, it was really just an aside to an artist who thought that the way to depict make a sidearm look futuristic and macho was to draw it as having a calibre of two inches and the ergonomics of a hair-dryer.

For weapons it really depends on if you want to represent military or civilian self defense/hunting weapons as the base.

Actually, I think that question is a downstream one. I think it is best to decide what ergonomic paradigms exist first and then choose which ones to use as the bases, and not to choose the base models first and then inquire as to which paradigms need to be represented.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

A lot depends on the minimum size of the ammunition. For example, infrared homing rounds are 15mm minimum at TL9 while shapecharged rounds are always a minimum of 25mm. A solid sidearm would be an ETC 15mm Magnum Pistol loaded with infrared homing rounds.

If you have a technology for which the smallest possible cartridge is the size of a small salami you can't use it in a pocket pistol. So you use that technology in a two-man crew-served weapon like a recoilless AT rifle, and use some other technology for your pocket pistols.

That may have a large bearing on what sort of performance you can get out of different form factors — pi- from a pocket pistol and (10) cr ex with linked cr ex from a crew-served AT weapon — but it does not have much bearing on what distinct ergonomic forms of weapons there are.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

When my father passed a couple of years ago I inherited hs gun magazine subscriptions for however long they lasted. So right now I'm pretty well up on what the American gun industry tries to sell and maybe what the market wants to buy. Using arbitrary numbers I'd rate pistols as follows:

Thanks, that's helpful.

Concerning your "special" format of pistols that aren't really designed to be carried at all. I suppose that that includes both very-large calibre handguns with powerful cartridges for knocking over bowling pins at long ranges and some with tiny calibres for making very precisely placed holes in paper. Is that right?

This at least seperates pistols out by size and somewhat by appropriate purposes.

Thanks. That's exactly what I want.

Longarms are of course another atte rand I don't ahve common lengths and weights as ahndy in my head right now. I amya ddress those alter.

Please do.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Thanks, that's helpful.

Concerning your "special" format of pistols that aren't really designed to be carried at all. I suppose that that includes both very-large calibre handguns with powerful cartridges for knocking over bowling pins at long ranges and some with tiny calibres for making very precisely placed holes in paper. Is that right?


o.

Yes, bowling pin guns are in the category of "competion" (one or two are in Tactical Shooting) as are pure bullseye guns without size limits.

Some things like Olympic pistol shooting some times have pistols that are required to have dimensions that are decribed as "box" whose size they can not exceed. That results in a very specialized gun no bigger than size "3" but loaded for a cartridge like .22 short.

Arbitrary limits in competition of hunting can produce almost anything.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Arbitrary limits in competition of hunting can produce almost anything.

True. So even though PC types will sometimes press their competition guns into use on an adventure, or have run-ins with NPCs thus expediently armed, I'm afraid that there is no way to treat such things systematically. :(