Need your help/advice on optics , supressors and so on!

[pmulcahy11b]

My brain hurts. I'll come back to this later -- maybe much later. Maybe let it percolate a while.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The ranges for the laser aimers are based on modern equipment. The only issue is whether a person can spot the laser dot or not, hence the Observation skill check. If it needs to be seen at longer ranges, you'll have to have some sort of magnifying sight.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Ive actually found that a red dot sight such as an Aim point easier to use then a laser and it is not effected by the environment. Ones vision might be though. You can readily see the red dot and do not have to try and look for it down range. its much more user friendly and seems to be quicker on acquiring the target. Also the red dot sight depending on type or quality can be used out to 300+ meters.

[B.T.]

Oh, man ...

This more complicated than I thought.

A very good idea is the Observation-check. I think, I'll definitely let my players do this.

But again to the supressors/silencers. Leg, you are defenitely right, in the case of assault rifles. But is it still the case if we talk about pistols? I still am not sure, but I think the ranges should be reduced, if a shot is at a longer distance than "short range".
I will certainly reduce the damage and the penetration of supressed weapons. Something like: -1 per 1D6. Not quite sure, how I'll do the Penetration decrease, maybe I'll take Paul's houserules.

Thanks, mates, you've really been a good help. If someone wants to give his 2 cents to this issue - I'd be glad for any further input!

Edit: When were armed forces beginning with the widespread issue of "red-dots"? I think, they will not be encountered in the T2k-world all that often, right?

[Gamer]

The only time I've ever seen laser sights good past short range is at night and with night vision, But then you better hope your opposition doesn't have NVS or your just telling everyone where you are.

I have no idea where some of you guys are getting your intel on suppressors affecting range, but it's actually negligible loss.
The only time you really loose range with suppressors is if you have to use the suppressors limiting you to subsonic ammo -with that ammo it doesn't matter if you have a suppressor on or not your range is limited.
Otherwise if you are loosing range it is definitely not installed correctly.

You should actually be getting better accuracy with the suppressor if it's installed it correctly.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think the range loss is as it pertains to subsonic rounds, which also tend to be pushing heavier bullets than standard. Rounds like .45 ACP, which are naturally subsonic, would not be affected by such. It would also depend upon the construction of the silencer.

The one first-hand source I have was a roommate of mine at 24th ID, who was with 2nd Ranger BN before an injury. He told me that while an MP5SD is very quiet (the bolt clatter is MUCH louder than the firing noise), the range is degraded significantly over a standard MP5. This, he said, was primarily due to the shorter rifled length of the barrel and something having to do with gas coming from the baffles. Silencers with wipes also degrade range. Brian Roethel knew his weapons, and was armorer-qualified on weapons I hadn't even heard of at the time. Most research I've done backs this up.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think I see what's going here: the confusion between a silencer and a suppressor.

A silencer is designed to seriously knock down the sound of a weapon firing, and it generally does that with a combination of subsonic ammunition and a special device, the silencer, which works by both/or a set of baffles which use the firing gasses and wipes that physically touch the round going down the silencer to slow it, to contain firing gasses and stop the bullet from exiting the barrel at supersonic velocity. These will reduce range, penetration, and damage. Heavier bullets and steel-cored bullets are often used to compensate for this.

A suppressor does not "silence" a weapon (no silencer actually makes a weapon sound like it does in the movies, BTW) -- it dampens most of the muzzle blast, and while it reduces noise very little, can cause confusion as to where the shot came from when heard from a distance. The primary reason for the use of a suppressor is to eliminate firing signature. It would not reduce range, damage, or penetration, though they do tend to wear out eventually, degrading accuracy in the process.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Gamer

The only time I've ever seen laser sights good past short range is at night and with night vision, But then you better hope your opposition doesn't have NVS or your just telling everyone where you are.

I have no idea where some of you guys are getting your intel on suppressors affecting range, but it's actually negligible loss.
The only time you really loose range with suppressors is if you have to use the suppressors limiting you to subsonic ammo -with that ammo it doesn't matter if you have a suppressor on or not your range is limited.
Otherwise if you are loosing range it is definitely not installed correctly.

You should actually be getting better accuracy with the suppressor if it's installed it correctly.

Uh not entirely correct.

The answer here is depends on the type of silencer.

An integrally silenced weapon, such as the aforementioned MP5SD, have holes drilled in the barrel to let out propelling gas.

The premise in those is that all ammo is reduced to subsonic speeds and the gases trapped in the can to muffle the report.

You statement is more or less correct for a can threaded to the end of an otherwise stock weapon. This also depends on if that can is designed to bleed gas and slow the bullet to under 1100 fps or not.

[Milano]

I would tend to agree with ArmySGT. There are two types of suppressors integral and not integral.

Of the integral silencers I have never heard of one that doesn't reduce the speed of the full power cartidge bullet significantly. This does not mean that the bullet is always reduced to below the speed of sound. It would take quite a suppressor to slow a 7.62x51 to this level. That is why some weapons are designed to use subsonic ammunition, ie the AI Covert.

Of the "screw on" types there are two VERY general varieties. The first has wipes that slow the speed of the bullet and capture the expanding hot gasses and release them slowly. These have to be maintained often, like every 10 shots and are very very quiet. An, example is the silencer on the old Hush Puppy pistol.

The second is the type that just captures the gasses and releases them slowly. These are what is usually seen on movies etc. They do not slow the bullet and they do not hinder accuracy. However, without subsonic ammunition, they do not work as well as other types. There isn't the crack of the bullet leaving the muzzle but there is a definate "echo" of the bullet going downrange. Check Youtube and thee are alot of examples of these. (I saw one that really showed the difference. It was a guy fiing an m14 mod with both super and sub sonic rounds. WOW.)

[B.T.]

Two additional questions concerning optics and SOPMOD parts:

In my T2k-universe a limited number of SOPMOD rifles are available, issue M4 and improvized rails on other designs. Some of my players got their hands on SOPMODs.

1) The ACOGS: In game terms I use them as "sniper scope", which only means, "Rng" is 10 or 15 m higher.

2) An interesting question was raised by one of my players: Does an additional grip underneath the barrel decrease single shot recoil?
I'd say: "No!" Allthough the rifle is a little "bigger" than a rifle without a grip, I would just decrease "Bulk" by 1 point, if a person using an additional foregrip encounters a person with the same "Initiative" value.

Comments or hints, anyone?

Would come in handy, we'll be gaming on saturday - first session with the new "toys".

[Legbreaker]

I can't speak for an additional grip on the '16, but having used the Steyr AUG I'd say it would have little to no effect. It's purely a matter of personal preference and comfort whether the grip is down or up parallel to the barrel, although it can add a slight amount of stability in the prone position (where it's able to act a little like a monopod).

All in all, I'd say in the down position it may assist with reaction times at short range, but will do little for recoil controllability - weapon just naturally points better...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by B.T.

Two additional questions concerning optics and SOPMOD parts:

In my T2k-universe a limited number of SOPMOD rifles are available, issue M4 and improvized rails on other designs. Some of my players got their hands on SOPMODs.

1) The ACOGS: In game terms I use them as "sniper scope", which only means, "Rng" is 10 or 15 m higher.

The ACOG sights come in different magnification power, from 1.5 up to 6 power so they do work as a telescopic sight but you will have to know specifically what magnification power the particular ACOG has.
I would suggest using the table Paul Mulcahy has for the bonus to range for using such sights http://www.pmulcahy.com/equipment/vision_devices.html

Originally Posted by B.T.

2) An interesting question was raised by one of my players: Does an additional grip underneath the barrel decrease single shot recoil?
I'd say: "No!" Allthough the rifle is a little "bigger" than a rifle without a grip, I would just decrease "Bulk" by 1 point, if a person using an additional foregrip encounters a person with the same "Initiative" value.

Comments or hints, anyone?

Would come in handy, we'll be gaming on saturday - first session with the new "toys".

I agree with Legbreaker, I think a forward grip makes the weapon more comfortable to use and only helps in some way to control recoil but not in any way that the rules can actually cover. It can even make the weapon faster to manoeuvre but again the rules don't cover that sort of thing and I think your rule for decreasing Bulk for a weapon with a foregrip when two people have the same Initiative works well to cover that.

I believe that ultimately it comes down to the weapon and also the ammunition used. For example no matter how much you held onto the forward grip on the Austeyr/AUG the weapon always pulled up and to the right when firing bursts yet the M16A2 didn't pull up as much even though we fired exactly the same ammunition through them.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by B.T.

Edit: When were armed forces beginning with the widespread issue of "red-dots"? I think, they will not be encountered in the T2k-world all that often, right?

The first military use reported is the Son Tay Raid during the Vietnam War. Widespread use came in the late 90s with the US Army Infantry getting them. I think the USMC lagged a few years behind us. Other nationalities, I don't know about.

In game, things are bad in that timeframe, but I could see an argument to field them anyway to increase troop survivability and help the more poorly trained replacements to shoot better since their training would be rushed. YMMV, though.

Bottom line though, you could logically explain it.

[Gorbag]

I just had a brain thingie on this subject, so I thought I'd comment here.

The Israelis got big into red dot sights in the late 80s/early 90s. I can't for the life of me remember the name of the equipment they used, but I'm sure it's out there in the interwebnets. Aimpoint also got going in the early 90s (makers of the more popular red dot sights), so the technology was already existent, just not mature. I suppose you could argue within the T2K timeframe about US units acting in concert with Israelis, seeing the cool gear, and making a case for general issue (if not some trading/midnight requisitions for personal use).

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Gorbag

Aimpoint also got going in the early 90s (makers of the more popular red dot sights), so the technology was already existent, just not mature.

Please don't think I'm trying to come across as a know-it-all and correct you, I'm trying to support your comments.

Aimpoint was actually around in the late 60s. The Son Tay Raiders took Aimpoint's first 200 produced sights for that mission. In those days they were designed for shotguns though, not military weapons.

One of the benefits of being at Benning was getting to talk to a bunch of the Raiders who now have contractor jobs on post (not PMC contractors, Range Control, doctrine writers and other office-type jobs). Apparently COL Simons heard about them and took all 200 of their first production run, then taped them to the carrying handles of their rifles. Nighttime accuracy went from 10-15% to about 75% according to the commander of the Greenleaf element.

Definitely a real world precedent, with supporting data, for an ambitious commander in Twilight (2000 or 2013), to submit an Operational Needs Statement to purchase red-dot sights for his battalion/brigade prior to the real world acceptance and issue in the late 90s. Then the whole issue of "general issue" is avoided.

[natehale1971]

okay.... i know this isn't part of the subject header, but i have a question about silencers. Can the silencer be built into a barrel and help with accuracy of the rifle, smg or pistol? I ask this out of an idea for a bullpup type series of weapons for my 2300ad campaign (image based off of some Ghost in the Shell and Appleseed weapons).

[Gorbag]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Please don't think I'm trying to come across as a know-it-all and correct you, I'm trying to support your comments.

Aimpoint was actually around in the late 60s. The Son Tay Raiders took Aimpoint's first 200 produced sights for that mission. In those days they were designed for shotguns though, not military weapons.

One of the benefits of being at Benning was getting to talk to a bunch of the Raiders who now have contractor jobs on post (not PMC contractors, Range Control, doctrine writers and other office-type jobs). Apparently COL Simons heard about them and took all 200 of their first production run, then taped them to the carrying handles of their rifles. Nighttime accuracy went from 10-15% to about 75% according to the commander of the Greenleaf element.

Definitely a real world precedent, with supporting data, for an ambitious commander in Twilight (2000 or 2013), to submit an Operational Needs Statement to purchase red-dot sights for his battalion/brigade prior to the real world acceptance and issue in the late 90s. Then the whole issue of "general issue" is avoided.

No worries...information is good.

And I had no idea those were Aimpoints on the Raiders' guns. Wow. Learn something new everyday.

[weswood]

Originally Posted by Eddie

In game, things are bad in that timeframe, but I could see an argument to field them anyway to increase troop survivability and help the more poorly trained replacements to shoot better since their training would be rushed. YMMV, though.

What does YMMV stand for? It's new to me.

[Eddie]

Your mileage may vary.