Weapon choice for women. [Archive]

jester

02-03-2010, 09:17 PM

Well, when the U.S. adopted the M9 9mm women were qualifying more often and higher than they had previously with the 1911. In part it was due to the recoil difference. Another part was not the mass of the weapon because the M9 is lighter with an allow frame, the .45 all steal, but it was the weapons design and the grips, the M9 was small so the smaller shooters most women could get a better grip, which means better control which means better accuracy. <I put the grips with finger grooves on my .45s and 9mms and my scores went up 10+%>

And yes the lighter recoil added to greater controlability as well.

One could go with lighter calibers which is the same as a heavier weapon with the normal calibers too. Heavier mass for the force of the recoil to operate against theory.

NOW, my opinion,

A revolver in .38 for women, the weapons are compact enough, but heavier so they take alot of the recoil. And they are standard calibers. Otherwise I would say a .380 which is a none standard caliber on the battlefield.

Another weapon which has come into its own is the Sig P228 which is now the M8 I think for the military, a lighter caliber with a smaller grip.

Rifle, the 16 with its light caliber, ligher weight and the gas system do much. Its been eons since I fired a M4/CAR-15 and it was never my primary weapon, but those may be the thing as well, although on full auto all bets are off.

Other weapons, the Glock 22 in .40 would be the greatest I would suggest.

Shotguns, 16 gauge or the 20 gauge either an autoloader or a pump to absorb the recoil.

Those are some of the weapons, I do not recomend the heavy weapons like belt feds due to their weight, the masses and weight of their ammo and the need to haul ass to put them in position and displace to do it over and over again. Over day and weeks of field conditions this will damn near kill a football lineman a woman will do it initialy but she will break sooner from the force and load.

Targan

02-03-2010, 09:40 PM

I am also worrying that the M468 might be too powerful for an "average" woman.

I think any rifle in 5.56 and any 9mm pistol or SMG would be fine for female shooters. An M468 is 6.8mm so yes, perhaps its getting a little too powerful for your more petit or less physically strong women. I know for sure that most of the women I served with in the Army Reserve didn't like shooting the SLR. The main reason seemed to be the recoil of the 7.62 round, the secondary reason was the overall mass of the weapon (prone and supported shooting not so much but when they were shooting unsupported while standing or kneeling they seemed to have a really hard time of it). The SLR is probably a bad example though because it was clearly designed for male European soldiers (fairly big people in other words). The M16 and its family seem to me to be designed with a much broader range of users in mind.

Game-wise all of the female NPCs in the PCs' group in my campaign used 9mm pistols but one carried a G3 (she was a pretty solid lass though and very strong and aggresive for a girl). Major Po's signaller/girlfriend (Sgt Li-Li Fang) was a tiny little Chinese-American woman and she carried an M16A2 that looked huge in her hands. I can't imagine her carrying anything bigger, she barely had enough mass to handle the recoil of that weapon. I liked playing Fang as an NPC, she had a tendancy to emit long, shrill screams during firefights if she was scared but it didn't prevent her from accurately shooting. She saved Po's butt on a couple of occassions, including once when they were attacked while "in flagrante delicto" :D

Interesting article you linked to by the way Kato.

kato13

02-03-2010, 09:52 PM

ARGH! Statistics!

Run away, run away!

:D
Ok you asked for it. If statistics don't work. Here come the graphs :D

kato13

02-03-2010, 10:02 PM

I think any rifle in 5.56 and any 9mm pistol or SMG would be fine for female shooters. An M468 is 6.8mm so yes, perhaps its getting a little too powerful for your more petit or less physically strong women. I know for sure that most of the women I served with in the Army Reserve didn't like shooting the SLR. The main reason seemed to be the recoil of the 7.62 round, the secondary reason was the overall mass of the weapon (prone and supported shooting not so much but when they were shooting unsupported while standing or kneeling they seemed to have a really hard time of it). The SLR is probably a bad example though because it was clearly designed for male European soldiers (fairly big people in other words). The M16 and its family seem to me to be designed with a much broader range of users in mind.

Game-wise all of the female NPCs in the PCs' group in my campaign used 9mm pistols but one carried a G3 (she was a pretty solid lass though and very strong and aggresive for a girl). Major Po's signaller/girlfriend (Sgt Li-Li Fang) was a tiny little Chinese-American woman and she carried an M16A2 that looked huge in her hands. I can't imagine her carrying anything bigger, she barely had enough mass to handle the recoil of that weapon. I liked playing Fang as an NPC, she had a tendancy to emit long, shrill screams during firefights if she was scared but it didn't prevent her from accurately shooting. She saved Po's butt on a couple of occassions, including once when they were attacked while "in flagrante delicto" :D

Interesting article you linked to by the way Kato.

Thanks. You gotta love the internet.

Legbreaker

02-03-2010, 10:29 PM

Ok you asked for it. If statistics don't work. Here come the graphs :D

NOOOOOOOooooooooo............!

Tegyrius

02-03-2010, 10:31 PM

It depends on the women - not just physique, but mindset and training. Much like male shooters, come to think of it.

Now, having said that, the common physiological issues I've seen in an admittedly small sampling of female shooters are lower overall upper body strength, lower grip and forearm strength, and smaller hands. The last is arguably the most critical for handgun use because you can't train a shooter's fingers to be longer, so grip circumference and the distance between the trigger face and the backstrap become criteria in weapon selection. The placement of a decocker or manual safety, if present, is a secondary aspect of the same issue.

The near-universal solution for this, at least in the T2k timeline, is likely to be the Browning Hi-Power (original 9mm, not .40 S&W - the heavier recoil spring makes the slide significantly harder to rack). I am certain there are female shooters out there who do not like the ergonomics of the BHP but I have yet to hear reports of them and will call them filthy heretics if they do speak up. If you're in the 2013 timeline, based in North America, and desirous of polymer, the S&W M&P9 with the small backstrap insert is an excellent option.

For SMGs, ergonomics of specific models are the only real question. You're looking at something with significantly lower recoil impulse than a handgun in the same caliber, with more points of contact (more stability) and less weight than an assault rifle.

As far as rifles, I'm pretty sure the optimum solution is a scoped Mosin-Nagant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko).

- C.

Mohoender

02-03-2010, 11:15 PM

I'm honestly don't think I'm being sexist I'm being realistic. Women are smaller and less strong than men on average. That is simple biology. If you choose common armaments to accommodate the Midpoint of woman's strengths you will be well below the midpoint of men's superior strength. That seems like a waste to me.

I would say that the weapons they should use are sniper rifles (including 50. calibre), machine guns (this time I'm not thinking of 50.). By extension, I would go for any assault rifle and actually almost any weapon.

Women had been used as snipers and performed very well (often better than men). They were used as machinegun crews (gone with the weapon weight problem) and they were excellent, keeping firing while men crew were already gone running like rabits. About weight, we have been talking of soldiers child and if 12 years old kids can hold AK-47s, a woman can (not the lightest of all). Actually, the only type of weapon I would find to be the least adapted could be pump-action rifles (and still I'm not sure).

Women are currently used as soldiers in many areas and the most striking exemple remains that of Polisario. All of what I'm saying comes from previous experiences in places were the situation has been that of a total war. As long as men are not in short supply, we tend to make women stay at home. Then, in some cultures (such as Germany), bringing women to the field is unthinkable even during the worse of times.

Of course, all of this doesn't work for our too common western barby type. Not really a problem, they would have been killed, vaporized or raped...

StainlessSteelCynic

02-03-2010, 11:19 PM

I would think the Beretta 92/M92 would be a better solution for female shooters in the T2k timeline. The Hi-Power has a grip that's quite wide in comparison and a number of female military and police personnel in Australia had some problems with it.

StainlessSteelCynic

02-03-2010, 11:22 PM

Ok you asked for it. If statistics don't work. Here come the graphs :D

Is it just me or is that set of graphs a little too much like breasts considering the discussion is about females handling weapons.
Granted, they would be some nasty pointy-out breasts but...

Maybe it's just me :rolleyes:

Mohoender

02-03-2010, 11:26 PM

Those are some of the weapons, I do not recomend the heavy weapons like belt feds due to their weight, the masses and weight of their ammo and the need to haul ass to put them in position and displace to do it over and over again. Over day and weeks of field conditions this will damn near kill a football lineman a woman will do it initialy but she will break sooner from the force and load.

Definitely, facts prove than you are wrong about that. WW-II USSR used women exactly for that: MG crew and anti-air crew. They performed extremely well and machine guns of the time were heavier than today. Of course, these were also crewed by pairs and that counts. Soviet women are no stronger than anglo-saxon ones (especially today). With the amount of chemicals you put in your foods, actual anglo-saxon women increasingly ressemble work horses.:D

jester

02-04-2010, 12:03 AM

Mo;

The Sovs didn't toss their machineguns over their shoulder and hump the bastards along with their ammo. The soviets had their machineguns on carts, and they had horse drawn wagons to carry their stuff too.

I am talking about small unit tactics carrying 120 pounds of equipment for weeks on end living on little water and little food and little rest over rough terrain.

And as for the whole "women were the best snipers" routine. How much of it was propoganda? And where were they fighting?

Call me bias, but Marine snipers are the standard to which all others are put to the test in my book. If one is operating close to their own lines then the task is VERY EASY! It is little different than being a good marksman.

To be a sniper again my view takes ALOT of excellent field craft. Shooting, is not the only thing a sniper does. But infiltration, locating and getting to a good place to take your shot, having an escape plan and being able to make it is another consideration, and waiting. Lots and lots and lots of waiting is also needed. Waiting to study your target, the area around your target and deciding on what the target is going to be and when to engage it.

I would say the skills needed for a good sniper are:

Intelligence
Endurance
Nerve <Coolness>
Observation or Recon skill
Stealth to a lesser extent
Feildcraft as I said
Combat Rifleman
Forward Observation <this is needed ALOT to determine your shot to target as well as cover and other obstacles>
Anyhow, in my view those are the T2K skills one would need to be a sniper.

And operating in an urban enviroment is different than in field conditions, one can operate in the shadows and not require very much gear to sustain ones self but rather just a rifle, scope and a couple spare rounds and they move out. In the field or T2K conditions well you are also rucking a pack with all the things you own on your back.

But really, you are talking about female troops operating from the relative luxury of operating out of their own lines with all the support it provides which is far far different.

kato13

02-04-2010, 12:26 AM

And as for the whole "women were the best snipers" routine. How much of it was propoganda?

Not to minimize the accomplishments of any women snipers but I can certainly see the propaganda value in cultivating the image of "Even our women are better killers than their men".

Targan

02-04-2010, 12:27 AM

Is it just me or is that set of graphs a little too much like breasts considering the discussion is about females handling weapons.
Granted, they would be some nasty pointy-out breasts but...

Maybe it's just me :rolleyes:

No its not just you. I was going to write a post almost exactly the same as yours but I didn't want to lower the tone of the discusion. Turns out I didn't need to worry :D

kato13

02-04-2010, 12:29 AM

Is it just me or is that set of graphs a little too much like breasts considering the discussion is about females handling weapons.
Granted, they would be some nasty pointy-out breasts but...

Maybe it's just me :rolleyes:

Yeah I noticed that as well, but I think men are wired to notice anything that might look like breasts. (.) (.) ;)

pmulcahy11b

02-04-2010, 01:48 AM

Is it just me or is that set of graphs a little too much like breasts considering the discussion is about females handling weapons.
Granted, they would be some nasty pointy-out breasts but...

Maybe it's just me :rolleyes:

What was the name of that movie where one of the characters had a bullet-shooting bra? :eek:

Found it -- One of the Matt Helm movies, The Ambushers.

Mohoender

02-04-2010, 02:50 AM

That post will take time and kato, feel free to put it somewhere else because it might not be entirely relevant to this thread. I realize that I'm opposing many on women issues (and I agree with myself on it:D) but I'm not sure it brings us very far. Moreover, I agree with some of what the opposing camp is saying. As a result, I write this large post on women.

First, I consider T2K to be more similiar to WW1, WW2, Polisario and Israel's wars than to foreign wars (Afghanistan, Angola, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam). For the foreigtn ones, no matter how hard they are, you can pull out whenever you want and women at war is reduced to a gender problem. Israel's wars and Polisario can be considered local wars but neither for Israel nor for the Polisario as both are fighting for their very existence. If you go to WW1 and WW2, you simply have to fight it to the end or surrender.

In Israel, women had been involved in war and are accepted in the army. Nevertheless, they usually fill the ranks of second line units and artillery. It makes sense. In Western Sahara, all women were trained in fighting and used for rear guards. Therefore, it freed the men for offensive actions and it makes sense too when 500.000 people are fighting (and winning over) an army like that of Morocco.

I you go to WW1, women were only used for health care. It makes sense given the time period. However, while men were in the trenches, women took over the entire economy, in the field and in factories. Anyone can imagine what a WW1 factory was looking like (no fancy carrying divices to help you out). In addition, in the fields and in these factories they were working 12-14 hours a day, often 7 days a week. As one of my friend says women won WW1 (the man is 78 years old).

In WW2 the situation had changed again. In most countries, women were used not only in the health department but also in all types of technical departments (they had gained more profeciencies). In the Soviet Union, women were fighting as tank crewers, heavy weapon crewers (MG and HMG), anti-air artillery (at Leningrad, more than half of the anti-air batteries were crewed by women), pilots (including fighter pilots), truck drivers and snipers. In every occupied country they were highly involved in resistance movement and fighting (sadly, the last attack in Iraq, 2 days ago, was successfully carried out by a woman: 150+ casualties). In the resistance movements they were used as courrier, ammunition carriers, front line fighters and... to put up bombs... In the meantime, women were back in the factories. Many among us consider irrealistic to have women carrying a belt-fed MG in combat but you are forgetting about these times. As men were carrying them around only during the offensive times, women were already carrying them 12 hours a day, 7 days a week simply to make them.

Can all women carry heavy weapons and are they all fit for fighting? Of course no but nor are the men. Are today's women as strong as then? Probably not in the West but those who can't adapt will be dead by 2000. Are women doing hard task today? Everywhere. Women in Africa are walking miles carrying liters of water while men do what they do best: fight, play and sleep (and while you go at work every morning, you think that you are civilized:p). Equally true for Asia, Latin America, Part of Europe and Russia. Of course one, will say that women are better for housekeeping. Yeah!! The only reason men live in messy places is that it is too tiring to clean them.:D

Will you have women in the front line? With the situation in T2K no doubt. Would they be better used in second line duties? I would say yes, especially if you need to freed more men for your infantry. As several among us said, men are often better suited for close combat.

For the specific case of T2K I would also expect to see less women (18-45) around than men. Again, they would have been back in the factories and many would have been vaporized with them. Would men have a tendancy to leave them behind, I would think so. Would they be trained to use weapons? Of course unless you are the most stupid guy on the planet.

About the idea that propaganda could have made up the bravery of women, Kato, you have it the wrong way. Propaganda did exactly the opposite: less women were made heroes of USSR, only six were recognized as heroes of the French resistance (outrageous!!). None was recognized for their war efforts (this didn't change over time). As soon as the war ended the Soviet Army reverted to its old sexist habits (except this time for propoganda). In the 15th century they were burnt as sorceress, in the 1920's they were forced back to housekeeping as it was the case in the 1950's. About their bravery, it shouldn't be put in doubt and I'm convinced that women don't give up when men do. Nothing to do with courage but it would probably be better explained by motivation. While men and women are both fighting for countries or families, women know better what they will loose (In most cases, they spend more time with the kids). That might also be the reason why they could be better suited for rear guard.

About their hability to carry weapons in game terms, Kato you must be sexist (Forget about f... political correctness). The best option could be to check what the avarage women built is, and lower the stats accordingly. Then, you could design a system that will take into account physically stronger women. By the way, this is valid for men too. I had a friend who could throw a 6kg weight at more than 15 meters with ease (and no training) but he was one out of about 500 men in the college.

My conclusion, Kato, be sexist and you'll have women capable of carrying belt-fed machineguns and men unable to lift properly an AK-47. The difference will reside in the proportion of both. One interesting point: women have never been excluded from the Foreign Legion but none has ever passed the selections and ever been accepted. IMO having the same stats for men/women is sexist, having all women weaker than men is sexist too but having differences could reflect reality. As a GM, I often give more importance to the background. If one players makes up a good story where his/her female athlete entered the military, I have no problems with it. However, if she has lifted weight her all life, she may be able to carry a mortar on her shoulder but can't look like a bimbo (as simple as that). You have more bimbos around.;)

May be it could be good to have a difference at the starting point (depending on the method you use), having your players accepting it would be more difficult. Then, your answer should be given by your players background. Again players have a tendency to roll superior characters. Nice but as a GM, I always check and often modify this. Possibilities are endless and, then, you don't have to ask what weapon is better suited.

headquarters

02-04-2010, 03:49 AM

I have personal experience in working with female soldiers and officers and have to say that I pretty much agree with MO on this one .The girls in our platoon handled the G3s and MP-5s we had on average as well as the guys .Thats not to say that they wouldnt have preferred a lighter gun with less of kick like something in the 556 family .

Where they equal as soldiers ? Does recoil and gun weight have anything to say when it comes to girls ?
Yes and no . Some were better grunts than some of the guys due to both mental and physical ability .Alot of guys were better -there were more of them ,and guys just get stronger on average .

Of course - being bigger and stronger is often better when handling a weigthy gun -that goes for guys as well as girls.If you have to carry it for miles and miles it pays to be stronger.
Bu training and mindset are the most important factors imho.

If motivation and training is in place - pretty much any weapon commonly in use like assault rifles or SMGs or "battle rifles".

If untrained and really just picking up the gun because she has to - something with a low recoil and easy handling is essential -as it would be to a guy in her situation . I am thinking a .22 pistol ( can be a nasty package with the right rounds ) or a handgun caliber carbine like the 9mm Beretta or similar .

Easy to operate -ergonomics that bring barrel in line with eye and a recoil that doesnt scare them into closing their eyes when pulling off one.

all imho -of course .

I would say that the weapons they should use are sniper rifles (including 50. calibre), machine guns (this time I'm not thinking of 50.). By extension, I would go for any assault rifle and actually almost any weapon.

Women had been used as snipers and performed very well (often better than men). They were used as machinegun crews (gone with the weapon weight problem) and they were excellent, keeping firing while men crew were already gone running like rabits. About weight, we have been talking of soldiers child and if 12 years old kids can hold AK-47s, a woman can (not the lightest of all). Actually, the only type of weapon I would find to be the least adapted could be pump-action rifles (and still I'm not sure).

Women are currently used as soldiers in many areas and the most striking exemple remains that of Polisario. All of what I'm saying comes from previous experiences in places were the situation has been that of a total war. As long as men are not in short supply, we tend to make women stay at home. Then, in some cultures (such as Germany), bringing women to the field is unthinkable even during the worse of times.

Of course, all of this doesn't work for our too common western barby type. Not really a problem, they would have been killed, vaporized or raped...

Legbreaker

02-04-2010, 04:09 AM

In my first unit I was the machinegunner and carried an M60. I was also the smallest (65kgs) in the 9 man section (average weight somewhere around 80-85kgs). The M60 was used in a similar manner as LSW's such as the RPK and M249 are today - basically just another rifleman who happened to be able to put down a lot more fire.

As No1 gunner I was supposed to have an assistant to carry additional ammo, spare barrel, cleaning kit, etc. Unfortunately almost every No2 I ever had was near useless, some to the point where I wouldn't even trust them with spare ammo.

I found being the gunner tough at times, but on the whole, no harder than being a standard rifleman.

At the time I would say I was of a similar build as many women would be after a few months of physical effort. With the machinegun weighing about 10.5 kgs, 600 rnds about another 18kgs, plus all the other odds and ends a foot mobile infantryman carried and fought with....

copeab

02-04-2010, 04:23 AM

The Sovs didn't toss their machineguns over their shoulder and hump the bastards along with their ammo. The soviets had their machineguns on carts, and they had horse drawn wagons to carry their stuff too.

During the invasion of Malaysia in 1941, the Japanese manage to carry more gear faster than the British soldiers by having about 12,000 men using bicycles. They slung most of their gear on bikes and rode or pushed them (which was still far less fatiguing than carrying all the gear personally).

I am talking about small unit tactics carrying 120 pounds of equipment for weeks on end living on little water and little food and little rest over rough terrain.

Worth noting that an old US Army study suggested that soldiers not carry more than 30% of their body weight into combat and 45% in other situations.

Call me bias, but Marine snipers are the standard to which all others are put to the test in my book.

For modern training, sure. For actual combat operations, I'll take the WWII-era Finns.

If one is operating close to their own lines then the task is VERY EASY! It is little different than being a good marksman.

Most of these female snipers were engaged in urban combat which, to my understanding, is not "very easy".

Legbreaker

02-04-2010, 04:27 AM

Worth noting that an old US Army study suggested that soldiers not carry more than 30% of their body weight into combat and 45% in other situation.
Ha!
Good luck with that actually happening.....
:(

pmulcahy11b

02-04-2010, 08:54 AM

Worth noting that an old US Army study suggested that soldiers not carry more than 30% of their body weight into combat and 45% in other situation.

Leg, he just misquoted -- he meant 130% and 145%. :eek:

simonmark6

02-04-2010, 10:29 AM

Legbreaker

02-04-2010, 04:44 PM

Leg, he just misquoted -- he meant 130% and 145%. :eek:

Ah, forgot to carry the one......:D

copeab

02-04-2010, 05:53 PM

Just read Mo's post and I'd like to make an interpretation in case anyone thinks he's accusing Kato of being sexist. His "You must be sexist" is a command, not an accusation.

This is why I prefer Hollywood realism to real-life realism ;)

kato13

02-04-2010, 06:08 PM

Just read Mo's post and I'd like to make an interpretation in case anyone thinks he's accusing Kato of being sexist. His "You must be sexist" is a command, not an accusation.

Sorry, I'll just slope off into a corner and play with my gerunds....

LOL I got it but thanks for the clarification. My girlfriend is an English teacher, and English is her second language just like Mo. Her precision with the rules of the language (far beyond what most Americans have) mixed with sometimes not understanding idioms and multiple meanings, leads me to see those potential misunderstanding pretty well.

Other than being tangential to the original topic (which he acknowledged), I don't have any problems with anything Mo posted.

copeab

02-04-2010, 06:44 PM

I'll also add that the average WWII Japanese soldier was around 5'4" and 120 lbs, but you didn't see them snapping like twigs during a march.

kato13

02-04-2010, 06:51 PM

I'll also add that the average WWII Japanese soldier was around 5'4" and 120 lbs, but you didn't see them snapping like twigs during a march.

At the same body mass women generally have ~50% of the upper body strength and ~70% of the lower body strength of men. Training and intensity can sometimes fill some of that gap, but I am talking about the rule not the exceptions.

copeab

02-04-2010, 06:54 PM

At the same body mass women generally have ~50% of the upper body strength and ~70% of the lower body strength of men. Training and intensity can sometimes fill some of that gap, but I am talking about the rule not the exceptions.

Do you have a reference for that?

kato13

02-04-2010, 06:57 PM

Do you have a reference for that?

http://www.stumptuous.com/ebben.html
which references

National Strength and Conditioning Association: Position Paper: Strength Training for Female Athletes. National Strength and Conditioning Association, Colorado Springs, 1990

I have seen it in a few other locations as well but that one was in my history.

copeab

02-04-2010, 07:22 PM

kato13

02-04-2010, 07:36 PM

I'm very very sorry if people are finding this offensive. I have a ton of respect for women in all endeavors. I actually think women are better for most jobs than men. I don't mean to minimize the accomplishments of any women anywhere.

My sister is pretty much a professional athlete (gymnastic instructor). She has great strength for her mass and still has a six pack at age 48 (and 4 kids), but she will still have me lift something for her.

When I have gamed I have sometimes given a -1 str penalty but given a +1 Agility rating for women.

I am also looking at this from a realistic large scale logistics perspective not a gaming perspective. This is forcing me to look at large scale averages. I in no means expect what I am discussing to impede in anyone's method of gaming.

Legbreaker

02-04-2010, 07:41 PM

The +1 to AGL works for me (even if it might not actually reflect reality). I'd be happy with a +1 to CHA too (they've usually got more they can flaunt :p).

kato13

02-04-2010, 07:50 PM

The +1 to AGL works for me (even if it might not actually reflect reality). I'd be happy with a +1 to CHA too (they've usually got more they can flaunt :p).

I probably should be a CON bonus now that I think about it as women are build for endurance more than strength.

Women are superior in super endurance events, and will probably surpass men timewise in +100 mile marathons as more women get into the sport.

pmulcahy11b

02-04-2010, 07:55 PM

I probably should be a CON bonus now that I think about it as women are build for endurance more than strength.

Women are superior in super endurance events, and will probably surpass men timewise in +100 mile marathons as more women get into the sport.

Women also have an advantage in fine dexterity (like Leg said, the +1 AGL), which along with the increased constitution, is what makes them good pilots for modern combat aircraft that have power-boosted controls and HOTAS-type sticks.

Raellus

02-04-2010, 07:57 PM

Don't women have superior, or at least comparable, lower body strength?

It also seems like women are more prone to knee ligament injuries than men.

Legbreaker

02-04-2010, 08:06 PM

I'm not convinced about the CON bonus as women seem to be built more frail than men on the whole - but that's just an observation rather than based on actual statistics and facts.

kato13

02-04-2010, 08:09 PM

Don't women have superior, or at least comparable, lower body strength?

It also seems like women are more prone to knee ligament injuries than men.

Leg strength in general is closer but not comparable especially for untrained individuals. More testosterone just keeps men stronger.

I think at the high end (powerlifters) women can get to like 90% of men in similar weight classes. I will even give you an additional 5% may be possible since fewer women enter the sport some genetic potential might be missing there.

kato13

02-04-2010, 08:11 PM

I'm not convinced about the CON bonus as women seem to be built more frail than men on the whole - but that's just an observation rather than based on actual statistics and facts.

I agree CON is an odd one. IIRC Women do have a stronger immune system and can probably handle blood loss better, but are probably more likely to suffer a broken bone.

kato13

02-04-2010, 08:26 PM

Since this thread has taken an unpleasant turn and there seems to be some confusion as to the points I am trying to make I want to go through my initial thought process.

This is for my Morrow Project Logistics study.

In an effort to minimize the negative effects of loss of Project weapons and ammunition to the enemy, as well as take advantage of a fully intact manufacturing base, perhaps non common calibers should be used.

When looking at non common caliber options some of the higher lethality ones 6.8SPC , 10mm. Colt, .40 S&W. Seemed to have met resistance due to an inability of untrained and lower strength individuals to handle the round. (this actually becomes a plus in my captured weapon scenario)

My field teams in my Morrow Project world are >95% male. I am reasonably sure that a some of the resistance of real world organizations to higher recoil rounds is out of concern for the ability of a portion of women (and a smaller portion of men) to handle firing them. The FBI bailed on the 10mm Colt for that reason.

Not wanting to have zero options for lower strength members, I am looking for supplemental firearms options to accommodate them.

When I started this thread I should have simply said "Lower strength individuals" rather than "women". For this and any confusion or bad blood that followed you all have my apologies.

kato13

02-04-2010, 08:47 PM

Women also have an advantage in fine dexterity (like Leg said, the +1 AGL), which along with the increased constitution, is what makes them good pilots for modern combat aircraft that have power-boosted controls and HOTAS-type sticks.

I believe on average women have batter balance and fine motor skills, but slower reflexes. So probably overall AGL is higher.

Lower leg strength in women might also limit the upper end of high-G maneuvers women can withstand. I really have no idea how important that is relative to other skills.

Legbreaker

02-04-2010, 08:55 PM

In my experience there has been almost no concern about finding a weapon that fits women.
Why? Because the vast majority of those who will be using those weapons on a regular basis are men. If women have difficulties, then the general view is they have no place on the battlefield.

Sexist? Absolutely. Realistic? Also absolutely.

A force should never compromise in it's selection of weaponry. They should be seeking the weapon that fulfills the need - no point selecting .22 semiauto rifles because everyone can handle the recoil if 7.62N is required to defeat the enemies body armour...

Tank crewmen are another example. Tanks are built with certain restrictions in space thereby disallowing 6'10" 250 lbs soldiers from being effective crewmen. Should tank design be adjusted to allow for larger bodies? Not at all because that would probably entail increasing the overall size and weight of the vehicle thereby making it less agile and a larger target.

Also, at least here in Australia, armoured crewmen cannot wear glasses, and I believe not even contacts are allowed. This is yet another example of selecting the correct people for the job. It might well be discrimination, but what's fairness compared to effectiveness?

So, with that in mind, women (and men) who are physically unable to handle the weapons and equipment issued to combat units, should not be assigned to such units. These people are far more likely to be assigned to supporting roles where their inability is not much of a handicap, and lighter, less able weapon systems such as PDWs are more appropriate (when needed at all).

StainlessSteelCynic

02-04-2010, 09:04 PM

Fine. Gimp female characters. Give them a -2 to Str or something.

I know someone who stopped coming here because he didn't like the attitudes of a lot of the posters. I know how he feels.

See some of you on other forums, I guess.

Seriously, What? :confused:

Isn't the point of a discussion forum to argue (in the proper sense of the word) your point of view? That's what's happening here, nothing else.
Far be it for me to speak for Kato but it's not as if he's demanding everyone adopt this idea, it's just something he is trying to work out for his own campaign and he's asked if people will argue the point with him so he can get some exposure to all sides of the issue so ultimately he can decide what he wants to do for his campaign.

If someone is going to get upset because someone else does not agree with their point of view, I think they seriously need to go out and get drunk, get laid, get stoned or something, anything, so they're not so tightly wound.
This is a place to discuss differing ideas, we won't always agree but it's not something you should be getting bent out of shape over!

Legbreaker

02-04-2010, 09:08 PM

This is a place to discuss differing ideas, we won't always agree but it's not something you should be getting bent out of shape over!

Seconded.

kato13

02-04-2010, 09:19 PM

Seriously, What? :confused:

Isn't the point of a discussion forum to argue (in the proper sense of the word) your point of view? That's what's happening here, nothing else.
Far be it for me to speak for Kato but it's not as if he's demanding everyone adopt this idea, it's just something he is trying to work out for his own campaign and he's asked if people will argue the point with him so he can get some exposure to all sides of the issue so ultimately he can decide what he wants to do for his campaign.

If someone is going to get upset because someone else does not agree with their point of view, I think they seriously need to go out and get drunk, get laid, get stoned or something, anything, so they're not so tightly wound.
This is a place to discuss differing ideas, we won't always agree but it's not something you should be getting bent out of shape over!

As I have told a few members of this board recently, when I am in a conflict I always look at myself first when assigning blame. While I don't fully understand how such intense negativity could have sprung up, I did make some poor choices in my wording and I did get into my "debate mode", where proving I am "right" with facts and figures overshadows almost everything else. It is sometimes a useful trait in my work life, but I fully understand how it can be annoying to others. If I was annoying, or appeared to be condescending or dismissive I apologize fully.

Targan

02-04-2010, 09:27 PM

Fine. Gimp female characters. Give them a -2 to Str or something.

I know someone who stopped coming here because he didn't like the attitudes of a lot of the posters. I know how he feels.

See some of you on other forums, I guess.

Woah. Sorry you feel that way man. You are valued here, please don't go.

There are definite physiological differences between men and women. On the strength side of things it nearly all comes down to testosterone, the vastly different amounts produced by the male and female body and the effects it has on the body through puberty. I don't think any of us are intentionally being misogynistic in this discussion. Or if we are, so is the Almighty. The action of higher levels of testosterone on the male body results in a variety of effects that lead to (on average) greater strength. That's just the way it is. Greater bone density, greater muscle density and mass, stronger ligaments. Women who engage in high levels of exercise, weight training etc actually produce more testosterone than the average woman as well as strengthening and building their muscles, so they gain some of the benefits that men get (its just that men get those benefits more easily).

I'm no expert but as I understand it both men and women get testosterone from their adrenal glands but men also get testosterone from their testes. Aside from strength women do have some advantages over men that can be useful in combat. I have read that women often have a higher pain threshold than men for instance.

As I have said on this forum before, when I went through basic training there were six females in my platoon and I had alot of respect for five of them (one of them really wasn't cut out for it emotionally/psychologically but then so were half a dozen of the guys). Those five girls were resiliant, tough and resourceful and I'm sure went on to make good if not great soldiers. But every single one of them had a really hard time when it came to challenges specifically related to strength and especially upper body strength. During stretcher carries, carrying full ammo boxes, long distance pack marches, those girls really put the effort in but they all struggled and their exhaustion and failure points were lower than the men. Also they all struggled on the firing range with the SLR. Perhaps they might have done better if they had been big, strapping girls but they were all average height and built like fit young women are usually built. And if it had come to a stand up hand to hand fight I could have wiped the floor with any of them.

These are just the facts as I saw them. Reality doesn't play favourites or try to upset anyone. It just is what it is. So IMO smaller calibre, lighter weapons are going to be easier for most women to utilise. And with their little hands, weapon furniture should be on the smaller side too.

pmulcahy11b

02-04-2010, 11:02 PM

I'll agree that for play balance, the GM should not handicap female characters. Especially if the PCs are played by female players; female T2Kers have always been a rare commodity!

headquarters

02-05-2010, 02:13 AM

I'll agree that for play balance, the GM should not handicap female characters. Especially if the PCs are played by female players; female T2Kers have always been a rare commodity!

Seconded .

Plus I have seen some brutally ugly women in the army that looked like they could rip one of my arms off and beat me to death with it ..

(That last one was a joke - I kid.)

Copeab - hope you change your mind about going.

copeab

02-05-2010, 02:45 AM

kato13

02-05-2010, 03:04 AM

Okay, since I've been around since the old TownHall forum days, I do owe people an explanation.

This thread was rapidly becoming a "women are inferior to men and I have the stats to prove it" misogynist fest. We've already gone down that path.

Early last year, or maybe in 2008, there was a thread on women in combat in 2000. A rather vocal minority maintained that healthy women in their 20's were still inferior to 13 year old boys and 50 year old accountants. That thread left a bad taste in my mouth and, frankly, I should have known better than to get into this thread.

I also have a major concern that Paul addressed. You aren't going to attract women to gaming (and especially T2K) with the attitude "Sure you can make a female character, but, you know, men are superior to women so she has to take all these penalties. It's only realistic." If you're lucky, the now female ex-player will *only* walk away from the table.

I guess this brings up a third point, realism. The T2K mechanics don't actually support gimping female characters, and for good reason -- if reality were really that much fun, we wouldn't be playing a game. Christ, it's not like I'm suggesting a 40 kg cheerleader tote around a M134 and a few thousand rounds.

For now, I'm just going to put two people on the Ignore List and see how it goes.

Most importantly I am glad you are back.

If anyone thinks I have any misogynistic feelings I apologize for anything I have said which might have lead to that conclusion.

I have for my entire life dealt with both men and women who have been working at the highest levels of excellence in gymnastics, martial arts, and volleyball. I never once felt that women had inferior drive or determination and have been equally amazed by the accomplishments of both sexes. I hope that my discussions of averages within a biological system would not construed as either hatred or contempt for women.

For any misunderstandings you have my deepest apologies.

Targan

02-05-2010, 03:05 AM

In my campaign the rules that we were using actually tended to favour female characters in one important area - encumbrance. You see, in Gunmaster/Harnmaster your body mass determines your clothing/armour's size factor, and in the version we were using both your Strength and Endurance stats are used to determine how badly you are affected by the load you are carrying. Sure the female characters tended not to have huge Str stats but their End stats were just as likely to be high as male characters. And the female characters were nearly always the smallest characters in mass so their uniforms and body armour weighed the least. The end result was that (assuming they weren't expected to carry the biggest weapons) they tended to have equal or less encumbrance penalties than most of the male characters.

Then there was Sgt LaToya Martinez. She was the USAF dog handler that Major Po brought into his team at Bremerhaven. She beat the crap out of Po during the mixed martial arts tournament he set up. They were in the same weight class and during their bout she fractured his jaw and knocked him out cold. No one in the party ever questioned her combat abilities after that. She was generally considered to be highly combat-effective. It helped that she was a naturally solidly built lass who came from a fairly rough part of Los Angeles, had six brothers and had worked in her family's tow truck business. She was definitely one of my favourite NPCs to play. She carried a G3 BTW.

jester

02-05-2010, 07:41 AM

Christ, it's not like I'm suggesting a 40 kg cheerleader tote around a M134 and a few thousand rounds.

That would be a cool idea for a character or NPC. Make her into a NPC who is a combat monster but also a total girlie girl riight down to keeping her nails manicured and always having fresh lipstick.

She just finished letting loose with a MK 19 blasting a column of infantry with a MK 19 and clearing away empty casings and links only to become depressed,

"I broke a nail!" and then she goes inti "berserker mode" seeking BLOOD!

Oh make her a totaly hot petite suicide girl! Who happens to be a heavy weapons specialist on the side.

copeab

02-05-2010, 09:16 AM

That would be a cool idea for a character or NPC. Make her into a NPC who is a combat monster but also a total girlie girl riight down to keeping her nails manicured and always having fresh lipstick.

She just finished letting loose with a MK 19 blasting a column of infantry with a MK 19 and clearing away empty casings and links only to become depressed,

"I broke a nail!" and then she goes inti "berserker mode" seeking BLOOD!

Oh make her a totaly hot petite suicide girl! Who happens to be a heavy weapons specialist on the side.

Ah, that's when I pull out the Macho Women With Guns supplement Bat Winged Bimbos From Hell ;)

pmulcahy11b

02-05-2010, 01:56 PM

Seconded .

Plus I have seen some brutally ugly women in the army that looked like they could rip one of my arms off and beat me to death with it ..

(That last one was a joke - I kid.)

Copeab - hope you change your mind about going.

I've met two women in the Army that I think could cut it in the Infantry - 2LT Jackie Treagre and Cadet Diana Stork. Both could do the job, and I wouldn't kick either out of bed (well, maybe LT Treagre -- she's a smoker.) I've met many others I trust with my back in a defensive position. They're out there.

pmulcahy11b

02-05-2010, 02:00 PM

That would be a cool idea for a character or NPC. Make her into a NPC who is a combat monster but also a total girlie girl riight down to keeping her nails manicured and always having fresh lipstick.

She just finished letting loose with a MK 19 blasting a column of infantry with a MK 19 and clearing away empty casings and links only to become depressed,

"I broke a nail!" and then she goes inti "berserker mode" seeking BLOOD!

Oh make her a totaly hot petite suicide girl! Who happens to be a heavy weapons specialist on the side.

Reminds me of story in the joke section of my site about forming a "women with PMS" commando corps...

Matt Wiser

02-05-2010, 10:34 PM

I had a female SEAL in the old CSU Fresno group: she was explained away as being in a prewar evaluation to see if women could handle being SEALS when the balloon went up; anyway, her preferred weapon was a CAR-15 (M-4 now), but had an MP-5 in the Hummer. And a SiG-Sauer 226 was her pistol.

Speaking of female fighter pilots, my cousin Jacqui is a Hornet-E driver for the USN; she was one of the first female USN combat pilots back in 1994-95. One story from OEF: she was one of the first over the beach in a C model, and they were hitting Kandahar airfield the first night. Someone sees a Taliban AF MiG-21 taxiing to the runway (they had a dozen or so airworthy MiGs and Sukhois until that night), and several Hornets began jockeying into position, hoping to jump the MiG as he takes off. But her CO (ex A-6 driver) puts a laser bomb into the -21 just as he reaches the runway. Too bad: if the CO had let the MiG get airborne, there would've been OEF's only air-to-air engagement....and some lucky guy or gal would've taken a scalp that night.

As for snipers: there were female snipers in the Red Army beginning in 1941, and all the way to the end. Plus tank crews, line medics (who also carried weapons and used them), combat aircrew, and so on. The only two female aces in the world were Soviet: One had 12, the other 10. Both were KIA.

jester

02-06-2010, 12:38 AM

Matt, think of it this way, had that bandit gotten airborne with ALOT of hot to trot naval pilots wanting a scalp, imagine more than one letting loose with their amram or sidewinders. 1 target and multiple missiles and lots of freindlies. Thats what comes to my mind.

Ivan also had female mortar crews firing the 82mms and larger, their gear was hauled via horse drawn wagon.

The Sov female pilots were called "The Night Witches" they flew mostly at night in antiquated aircraft. And most if not all their kills were on "other" aircraft like scout planes <piper cub type> transports and cripples trying to make it home. But mostly they did night time bombing runs on the Germans. Did a report on em once for college.

As for female SEALs, my crew in the barracks routinely had a female SEAL, I based her on Dana Delany of China Beach fame, mmmmmmmm, hotness back in the day. She hefted a Glock 20 in 10mm and a MP 5 in 10mm as well, she beat the hell out of one of the PCs or was it two? Who wanted the team to go with the .40 cal. After they were laying on the ground bleeding she pulled out the conversion kit for her lucky SMG, she was not about to part with "her" lucky SMG.

Alas, she was killed when their helo crashed at sea as they were returning from their mission. A Marine Helo don't ya know. She had taken a couple serious hits and was still in the metal stretcher when the helo hit the water. And none of the idiots on her team tried to save her. Then again what could I expect from retards from the 3rd Bn!

Targan

02-06-2010, 12:46 AM

I had a female SEAL in the old CSU Fresno group: she was explained away as being in a prewar evaluation to see if women could handle being SEALS when the balloon went up; anyway, her preferred weapon was a CAR-15 (M-4 now), but had an MP-5 in the Hummer. And a SiG-Sauer 226 was her pistol.
I remember you having posted about that character before. If you happen to still have her write-up somewhere and would be prepared to post it, I for one would love to see it. An excellent drop-in NPC for any T2K campaign IMO.

Speaking of female fighter pilots, my cousin Jacqui is a Hornet-E driver for the USN; she was one of the first female USN combat pilots back in 1994-95. One story from OEF: she was one of the first over the beach in a C model, and they were hitting Kandahar airfield the first night. Someone sees a Taliban AF MiG-21 taxiing to the runway (they had a dozen or so airworthy MiGs and Sukhois until that night), and several Hornets began jockeying into position, hoping to jump the MiG as he takes off. But her CO (ex A-6 driver) puts a laser bomb into the -21 just as he reaches the runway. Too bad: if the CO had let the MiG get airborne, there would've been OEF's only air-to-air engagement....and some lucky guy or gal would've taken a scalp that night.
Respect to your cousin! Cool story.

Targan

02-06-2010, 12:48 AM

As for female SEALs, my crew in the barracks routinely had a female SEAL, I based her on Dana Delany of China Beach fame, mmmmmmmm, hotness back in the day.

Hotness back in the day? I saw an ad on TV the other day for Desperate Housewives and realised that Dana Delany is now in that series (I've never watched it). She's still looking pretty fine.

Legbreaker

02-06-2010, 01:58 AM

Mmmmmmm, Dana.... :p

Somebody pass me something to wipe up the drool.

Targan

02-06-2010, 02:07 AM

Somebody pass me something to wipe up the drool.

*Hands Legbreaker rumpled, torn out pages from the 2.2 combat rules* Here you go. I won't be needing these. :sagrin:

copeab

02-06-2010, 02:55 AM

The Sov female pilots were called "The Night Witches" they flew mostly at night in antiquated aircraft. And most if not all their kills were on "other" aircraft like scout planes <piper cub type> transports and cripples trying to make it home. But mostly they did night time bombing runs on the Germans. Did a report on em once for college.

Well, the Night Witches were one of the all-female Soviet groups. They mostly flew the U-2 (renamed Po-2) biplane on nighttime harassment raids; they didn't do much damage but kept Germans up all night.

Another group flew the Il-2 ground attack planes (usually with male rear gunners). The third group flew medium bombers (the Pe-2, i think),

The only problem I remember the female pilots having was with the Pe-2; it had rather heavy controls and a few female pilots had trouble keeping the stick back for takeoffs. Another crewman (usually a woman and the rear gunner) would grab the pilot and pull back on her for takeoffs, returning to her position once in the air.

Adm.Lee

02-06-2010, 09:44 AM

Well, the Night Witches were one of the all-female Soviet groups. They mostly flew the U-2 (renamed Po-2) biplane on nighttime harassment raids; they didn't do much damage but kept Germans up all night.

Another group flew the Il-2 ground attack planes (usually with male rear gunners). The third group flew medium bombers (the Pe-2, i think),

The only problem I remember the female pilots having was with the Pe-2; it had rather heavy controls and a few female pilots had trouble keeping the stick back for takeoffs. Another crewman (usually a woman and the rear gunner) would grab the pilot and pull back on her for takeoffs, returning to her position once in the air.

IIRC there were 3 female air regiments: night harassment Night Witches , light bombers (Pe-2) and a night fighter outfit. There were a few individual daytime fighter pilots, too, notably Lidia Litvak.

kato13

02-06-2010, 12:54 PM

Reworked to add "new" wiki links-- Neat!

Aren't they? I hope they get traction.

Matt Wiser

02-06-2010, 09:35 PM

If I can find the stuff, I certainly will. We were using V. 1's rules. I still know the gal who played the SEAL: she's my girlfriend, and a 2nd LT in the CA ANG. She's currently in F-16 training at Tuscon with the Arizona Guard (which handles F-16 training for the Guard, Reserve, and some foreign operators). Her PC was one tough cookie; and others in the unit called her the Ice Maiden-you didn't try hitting on her.

Actually, the book A Dance with Death, which tells the story of the SAF's female combat pilots, says that the three Regiments were the following: an air-defense fighter unit, a night bomber unit (the famous 46th Guards "Night Witches"), and a Pe-2 dive bomber unit. The latter had a male CO as Marina Raskova, the founder of the unit, was killed in a crash ferrying a new Pe-2 to the Regiment, and no other women could be found who had the needed flight hours in her logbook to be considered for the job. There were also women flying in all-male SAF units, including Il-2s and Tu-2s. The author interviewed a number of surviving vets to tell the story, and she's a former WASP herself.

Jacqui had another story from a 1994-95 deployment (the first one to have women) on Eisenhower: she was flying wing on another Hornet when the lead had to land at a base in Saudi because he was having problems with his oxygen system. So they land, and taxi to the transit ramp (where aircraft on stopovers are parked), and the RSAF ground crews come out. Lead gets out of the plane, takes his helmet off, and shakes hands with the RSAF people. They get to Jacqui's plane, and when she pops the canopy and takes her helmet off, they all were about to have a coronary. These RSAF guys had never seen a female flying a tactical jet. Female pilots in transports, helos, AWACS, etc. in DESERT SHIELD/STORM, yes. But this was the first time they had seen a female fighter pilot. Base CO said "treat her like she's a man", and the two were put up for the night until a repair crew from the carrier arrived the next morning via a C-2 COD aircraft. The RSAF pilots were much more tolerant, as some of them had trained here, and had female USAF flight instructors.

waiting4something

02-16-2010, 01:37 PM

I think as far as suitable womens for women it should be this: anything that makes them look sexier. :2gunsfiri

Brother in Arms

02-16-2010, 02:55 PM

Any weapon she wants!

Women are just as capable with handling and operating firearms as men and in many cases better marksmen. Though they do often have different firearms preference which may be due to size and build. That being said I have seen women fire all types of firearms.

I went to the range one day with a group of freinds and lady showed up firing her Springfield M1A Scout rifle all day long :) it was a really beutiful day. She shot great, but I don't think I have shot so poory (guess I was distracted)When I was in Colorado I met another lady at the range who favored her Romanian PSL rifle in 7.62x54R and she was an excellent shot.
I brought a date to the range one day and she shot everything we brought with us, AKs. ARs, M1A tons of hand guns, but her favorite firearm was the remington 870. In fact all of the women I have been with have owned and fired firearms. My ex had a chinese SKS, but she shot many different rifles and shotguns. My current GF loves to shoot! She owns a Makarov and enjoys shooting my AK.

So like anything everyone is different

FrankieFisticuffs

02-25-2010, 11:20 PM

What a wide spectrum of thoughts and ideas on this matter! I don't think a single one of them is completely right or wrong, and while I consider myself an intense feminist I'm not offended by any of the comments. Here's my bottom line:

In a T2K setting, it hardly matters what a woman's prefrence of gun would be. It's immaterial. You use what's available, practicle, what you have ammo for and what it will take to get the job done. It doesn't matter if I'm great with a .22 bolt-action rifle. If I'm in a situation where I'm surrounded or about to be physically overpowered, I don't want to be assing around with the bolt action thusly giving someone an opportunity to tackle me. The weapon should meet the needs of the situation. Seems stupid to select a Walther PPK because you can handle the recoil if an AK is required to take out more targets. Any woman who's able to survive in an apocalyptic setting would learn that you need to be adaptable and do what you gotta do to survive. I imagine I'd be looking to upgrade my firearm whenever possible. ("Whadda ya know-I blew your face off with my Derringer. Think I'll be stealing your M1911 now. Kthanx bye")

But more to Kato's original point: Personally, I've liked every gun I've shot. My aim was better with smaller guns (my Makarov and Kel Tec) but with practice I think I can get used to anything. General tendencies that me my friends have noticed about women using firearms: Guns aren't usually too heavy but often too long, women have a little less machismo when attempting to fire an intimidating gun for the first time but often take to them quickly after using them and we crave lots of accuracy. Hope that was helpful :)

Targan

02-26-2010, 12:05 AM

Personally, I've liked every gun I've shot. My aim was better with smaller guns (my Makarov and Kel Tec) but with practice I think I can get used to anything. General tendencies that me my friends have noticed about women using firearms: Guns aren't usually too heavy but often too long, women have a little less machismo when attempting to fire an intimidating gun for the first time but often take to them quickly after using them and we crave lots of accuracy. Hope that was helpful :)

Bless your cotton socks. Please keep posting your thoughts. Valuable new point of view.

kato13

02-26-2010, 06:26 AM

Hope that was helpful :)

It was thanks.

copeab

03-01-2010, 03:04 AM

Just make sure they have color-coordinated outfits:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/09/21/2009-09-21_libyan_leader_.html

Cpl. Kalkwarf

03-01-2010, 09:16 PM

Just make sure they have color-coordinated outfits:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/09/21/2009-09-21_libyan_leader_.html

The first thing that popped into my head when looking at those pictures was the saying

"Its good to be the King" :P

Man some seriously bad-ass hotties he gots there.

JimmyRay73

03-02-2010, 12:39 AM

Hmm. First things first: Women and men are different, we all know that. We're all good at stuff, but evolution and design have conspired to give each of us strengths and weaknesses. I never felt a need to fiddle with roleplay rules to explain this 'cause I figure it'll average out in the long run. We can throw around statistics and anecdotes all day long, but it'll still probably average out.

Back to the original topic, I really believe that if you can't comfortably hold a firearm you can't operate it effectively, i,e, put steel on target. I'm a man of less than average height, with hands that are perhaps smaller than average (no cracks from the peanut gallery please). A .44 Ruger Blackhawk was probably too much for me. Was fun to shoot but the recvoil was a bear and the trigger guard dug a furrow in my trigger finger. An old school M1911 was very comfortable and controllable. Popular 9mm pistols run the gamut from tack driver to waste of time depending on their grip designs mostly. A small frame Bersa .380 works for instinctive shooting, but feels too small if I have any time to think.

My advice to anyone is to evaluate honestly the situation you're most likely to be faced with and then try several weapons to see what feels right for you. Smaller hands = smaller grips may seem elementary, but it doesn't always work that way. In a real life setting that means you should train with the weapon you intend to rely on. In an RPG setting we have the luxury of applying certain quirks if we wish relating to handling, availability and training.

waiting4something

03-02-2010, 09:44 AM

The first thing that popped into my head when looking at those pictures was the saying

"Its good to be the King" :P

Man some seriously bad-ass hotties he gots there.

I second that! The guy is like a James Bond villain or something with a security detail like that.:cool: Those are some sweet looking impactical colored cammies those chicks are sporting too. I saw some dude in the phillipines wearing some crazy colors like that once. I think it would be cooler if the women maybe sported booty shorts and high heels, now that would be a security you wanna get grabbed by. :D

pmulcahy11b

03-02-2010, 03:59 PM

You just wanna spread your arms and legs and yell "Frisk me!"

HorseSoldier

07-11-2010, 01:34 PM

So much of what women shooters are capable of with firearms gets informed by people dealing with women with little or no firearms training on recreational ranges who are timid and intimidated by recoil. As a counterpoint to this, I'd note that the women in my police academy class were just as able to train with and qualify (buckshot and slugs) with our issue short-barrel 870s as the rest of us. A properly trained female shooter will have no issues at all with an M468 or other 6.8 Rem SPC weapon (my wife, 5'5" and 130# never had problems with the 6.8 AR rig I had for a while once she got comfortable around long guns).

On the topic of handguns, I'd likewise note that there are a lot of women who shoot IPSC and IDPA competitively using 1911s. It again goes back to training -- female soldiers had issues with the M1911A1 and recoil back in the day, but the reality is that outside of SOF units, US military standards of pistol training are really pathetic. Referencing the police academy again, women had no trouble qualifying with .40 cal Glocks, on a much more demanding qualification course requiring much higher weapons handling skills and speed than the army qual course, once they had proper training. They did run .40 cals instead of .45, but that's because the issue 45s were Glock 21s and the grip size was just too large for all the women -- and several men -- in my class.

The M9/M92 was mentioned as a better choice, but it's actually pretty flawed if you are talking about someone with good firearms training and small grip size. The M9 has a really fat grip, and the controls are poorly placed for someone with smaller hands (of either gender) to operate them without breaking their grip.

The High Power was mentioned -- much better choice, given smaller dimensions and better control layout (though it's even better with some after market parts to make it more user friendly). According to my wife, the High Power is nice, but the 1911 is even better -- the single stack grip is actually much *more* user friendly for a small handed shooter.

All that said, if the question is about setting up a standardized equipment package for members of the Morrow Project, it's hard to go much past the Glock 17/19 combination. I'm not a Glock fan (traded my issue one in for a 1911 as fast as I was allowed to), but they're simple, reliable weapons that beginning shooters can pick up rapidly and that can then hang with progressively skilled shooters up to whatever skill lever. Various authorities on gunfighting consider them the best default for a gunfighters gun (Larry Vickers, Gabe Suarez, assorted others) and there's a lot of validity in their opinions, for shooters of either gender.

Dog 6

07-12-2010, 01:10 AM

My wife has a .380 auto she really likes, loves my AR-15/M-16A2, and is a mean shot with my .30-06 Remington model 70 at 500 - 600 m.

kcdusk

07-12-2010, 04:27 AM

Would it be wrong to say women are more likely to knife you in the back?

waiting4something

07-13-2010, 06:23 AM

Would it be wrong to say women are more likely to knife you in the back?

Not at all. This is more likely to happen after they get to know you and have you fooled into thinking they like you.:rolleyes: John Wayne Bobbit wishes that his ex-wife put it in his back, I bet.

waiting4something

07-13-2010, 06:40 AM

I was just thinking back when I talked with a female USAF security forces/CATM instuctor about firearms years ago. She told me how she perferred the 1911 over the M9 because it's smaller grip fit her small hands, like others have mentioned already. As for shotguns I have to say I have never seen a woman do well with 00 buckshot loads. Granted I have only seen 3 women handle 12 gauges. Their shoulders are just not developed to take that abuse. Yes, I know some women out there that hit the gym might be a different story. I think that was one of the reasons the USMC decided on the M1014/M4 Benelli. Hoping the semi auto action would buffer some of the felt recoil pump shotguns pack. Rifles as far as assualt/battle rifle calibers don't seem to be that big of a issue for women. Just the shotguns.

Targan

07-13-2010, 09:12 AM

Rifles as far as assualt/battle rifle calibers don't seem to be that big of a issue for women. Just the shotguns.

When I was a reservist I saw many female soldiers having a hard time firing the SLR. Just a bit long, heavy and powerful for them it seemed.

pmulcahy11b

07-13-2010, 11:26 AM

When I was a reservist I saw many female soldiers having a hard time firing the SLR. Just a bit long, heavy and powerful for them it seemed.

I've never fired an SLR, but it seems I'd have problems with it, being short (5' 8", or 172.7 cm). Then again, if I could manage an M60 well enough that I loved the thing, I might be able to manage an SLR.

LBraden

07-13-2010, 12:00 PM

My father was about that height and he was able to handle it no problem, hell he was even a marksman with it, but the SLR is just a semi-automatic (unless you know the matchstick trick) version of the FN-FAL, which the G-3 is similar to it.

pmulcahy11b

07-13-2010, 03:26 PM

LBraden, your avatar reminds me of a saying I hear that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have, "Be polite, be professional...and have a plan to kill anyone you meet."

Targan

07-13-2010, 03:30 PM

I don't think height was the problem. I'm only 5'10 and I love the SLR. The problem for the female soldiers seemed to have more to do with the narrowness of their shoulders and their lack of upper body strength. There may have been more to it than that though. Few if any of the women I served with had any prior experience with firearms. Many if not most of the male soldiers I served with had used firearms before. It is probably very different in the US (I imagine a high percentage of the American populace have handled and fired firearms in civilian life, including women).

I'm only describing what I saw of female soldiers trying to fire the SLR. Others' experiences are no doubt different.

Raellus

07-13-2010, 06:20 PM

I think upper body strength is a key factor in determining anyone's proficiency with long guns. I have a Mossberg 500 tactical shotgun with an adjustable stock and, at 6'4" and 180 pounds, have no trouble handling it. My wife, on the other hand, at 5'7"/130 thinks it's way too heavy for her and has a hard time bringing it on target or keeping it there. The length of the gun, especially since it's got the adjustable stock, is not an issue. She'll be the first to admit that her upper body strength is not very good. A physically stronger woman would have no problem handling the Mossy. A woman of average strength, however (like my lovely wife), probably would.

As for pistols, History Channel recently ran a reality competition show called Top Shot and one of the shooters was a female ex-cop. She carried a version of the 92F as her service weapon and she was a crack shot. During a pistol shooting challenge, she hit the second smallest target (out of eight or so) on the first attempt on an otherwise all-male team.

I think upper body strength and physical size relative to the weapon of choice are probably the most important factors in determining how well anyone can handle a weapon. Since women, on average, are smaller and have less upper body strength than your average man, and most guns are designed for the average man...

What I'm trying to say is that the deck is kind of stacked against your average woman.