- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
- Messages
- 36,543
- Reaction score
- 108,568
Is there any sort of chart that lists handguns/rifles across history by their maximum and effective ranges? I mean, I'm sure it exists somewhere, but not in any resource I currently own.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
True, but realistically you have to be able to see and aim at a target. Sure the gun can hit out to a 1000 meters. Most people don't have the skill to shoot past a hundred without difficulty. (Really, under that) Of course optics can change this. Then with shots out at extreme ranges things like wind, humidity, curvature of the earth and other crazy variables come into play.thats way higher than I would have thought. Seems like gunfights could take place across acres
To be fair Jerry Miculek is basically superhuman with a firearm. No, seriously.
Is there any sort of chart that lists handguns/rifles across history by their maximum and effective ranges? I mean, I'm sure it exists somewhere, but not in any resource I currently own.
thats way higher than I would have thought. Seems like gunfights could take place across acres
A interesting side note here is that many cannons were made of bronze. I'm not 100% sure why but I think it had something to do with steel being a pain in the behind to make steel.
Here's a couple of videos for some further information:ok, so what's the difference between light machine guns and assault rifles?
I can go look stuff up on wikipedia with the best of them, and have, but it largely appears that LMGs are heavier (often 2x) and have a monopod/bipod on the front. But something like the FN Minimi vs the M16 - same size cartridge, same muzzle velocity roughly, same range roughly, etc. rate of fire is about the same, and presumably due to the range and muzzle velocity and caliber being the same, the force of impact/stopping power/penetration are the same. Only appreciable difference i can find is that the Minimi allows for belts and the M16 really doesn't. is that really what it's about? I've seem some other LMGs using magazines, and of course there are plenty of machine guns (though they tend up into the MMG range) that use 7.62 and larger ammo.
i see here that one difference is that MMGs use "full power rifle cartridges", which means effective range of 1000m. effective range, i'm reading here, means effective range to a point target and hitting 50% of the time.
pretty much, yes!
right now I'm assuming for me
I think that'll do for my granularity
- LMG = assault rifle damage, more stable, full auto, big magazine
- MMG = sniper rifle damage, more stable, full auto, big magazine
- HMG = .50 cal damage, more stable, full auto, big magazine
Well that's not really completely accurate either. A better breakdown would bepretty much, yes!
right now I'm assuming for me
I think that'll do for my granularity
- LMG = assault rifle damage, more stable, full auto, big magazine
- MMG = sniper rifle damage, more stable, full auto, big magazine
- HMG = .50 cal damage, more stable, full auto, big magazine
Well that's not really completely accurate either. A better breakdown would be
- SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) = assault rifle damage (5.56x45mm,7.62x39mm, and 5.54x39mm) more stable, full auto, big magazine. Examples would include RPK 74, and M249.
- LMG = Battle rifle damage (.30-06, 7.62x51mm, 7.62x54, and 7.92x57mm), more stable, full auto, big magazine/belt fed. Examples would be MG3, M240, M60, and PKM.
- MMG = Battle rifle damage (.30-06, 7.62x51mm, 7.62x54, and 7.92x57mm), more stable, full auto, belt fed. Examples would include MG3, M240, M60, (All three on tripods vs bipods or some other type of vehicle mount) Maxim gun, and M1919.
- HMG = .50 cal or bigger damage, more stable (Must be used with a tripod or vehicle mount period), full auto, belt fed. Examples would include M2, DShK, or KPV.
As I am understanding it, a SAW is a role for a weapon, and not a physical classification. LMGs can be used as SAWs, for example. It appears that the M249 was created to be an intermediary between an M16 and an M60 (general purpose machine gun that fires 7.62, from my reading, which would put it in the MMG range above, as you have).
Here's a couple of videos for some further information:
As I am understanding it, a SAW is a role for a weapon, and not a physical classification. LMGs can be used as SAWs, for example. It appears that the M249 was created to be an intermediary between an M16 and an M60 (general purpose machine gun that fires 7.62, from my reading, which would put it in the MMG range above, as you have).
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that LMG's that fit into the typical SAW role are chambered to the same ammunition as the countries assault rifle. This tends to be 5.56x45mm, 7.62x39mm, and 5.45x39mm. Cartridges that are no doubt deadly. But are not as powerful as what typical LMG's are chambered for, such as 7.62x51mm, or 7.62x54. That's why I think there should be a separate category for them. While filling a similar role to each other, the power level is vastly different. From personal experience I have seen a 5.56 round not fully penetrate a 4x4 wooden post. While the 7.62x51 passed right through a 4x4 post.Sort of... it is complicated and depends on how far into semantics you want to get. GPMG, MMG, and HMG are fairly solidly defined, but LMGs are fuzzy, very fuzzy...
SAW is a role, a role that has been filled with automatic rifles, LMGs, and GPMGs. It has also come to be used to describe a specific type of LMG, typically a heavy rifle, often lacking a quick change barrel and lighter in weight than a "real" LMG.
Ironically the US M249 SAW does not fit this description, despite the US being very influential in the development of the concept.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that LMG's that fit into the typical SAW role are chambered to the same ammunition as the countries assault rifle. This tends to be 5.56x45mm, 7.62x39mm, and 5.45x39mm. Cartridges that are no doubt deadly. But are not as powerful as what typical LMG's are chambered for, such as 7.62x51mm, or 7.62x54. That's why I think there should be a separate category for them. While filling a similar role to each other, the power level is vastly different. From personal experience I have seen a 5.56 round not fully penetrate a 4x4 wooden post. While the 7.62x51 passed right through a 4x4 post.
Your missing my point. A 5.56 MG should not be rated damage wise as a 7.62x51 MG. Period.I agree but there is a key point, chambered to the same ammunition as the countries infantry rifle. Prior to the 1960s that meant a full power cartridge. To me the BREN is a classic LMG, not SAW, it was designed for sustained fire (quick change barrel) and may be mounted on a tripod or vehicle mount. It was used as a squad automatic weapon, but also in other traditional MG roles.
The early SAWs were the Chauchat, BAR, Heavy barrel FALs, M14A1 etc, these were specifically meant for use as squad automatic weapons, and did not see use in other traditional mg roles.
When you get to the 1960s, light machine guns tend to be magazine fed full power cartridge firing (BREN) or belt fed intermediate cartridge weapons. Magazine fed intermediate cartridge firing machineguns typically to fall into the SAW category (RPD, RPK, AUG, L86A1 etc).
Belt fed MGs firing full power cartridges capable of being used on a tripod, bipod or from the shoulder falling into the post WW2 class of GPMG. M240, M60, MG42/MG3, PKM are all GPMGs.
The GPMG further confuses the already hazy LMG category. It used to be simple, MMG on a tripod, LMG on a bipod.
Your missing my point. A 5.56 MG should not be rated damage wise as a 7.62x51 MG. Period.
for my purposes, they won't be. there won't be lots of options, but essentially 2d6, 2d8, and 2d10 for 5.56, 7.62, and .50, respectively.Agree, you would need to have a very compressed damage scale to even consider that. 7.62mm N has twice the energy of 5.56mm N.
Those ranges indicate the distance at which the round is considered to have significant lethality. In practice, actually hitting a target at those ranges is a rather different proposition. In WWII, something like 100,000 rounds were fired for each enemy casualty. In Vietnam, the figure was closer to 1,000,000.thats way higher than I would have thought. Seems like gunfights could take place across acres
Admittedly, cover and concealment also had something to do with that, or so I've been told.Those ranges indicate the distance at which the round is considered to have significant lethality. In practice, actually hitting a target at those ranges is a rather different proposition. In WWII, something like 100,000 rounds were fired for each enemy casualty. In Vietnam, the figure was closer to 1,000,000.
I'm not sure what number of HP or wounds are common in your system you are using. But while I can get behind 2d6 for 5.56 N, and 2d8 for 7.62 N. 2d10 is probably not enough for .50 BMG. A single .50 round is straight death to a human. Maybe a limb shot will only dismember that limb. I guess there's a slim possibility that you might survive that. But head, and torso shots pretty much regardless of positioning is a kill shot. Remember .50 caliber weapons are not anti personnel weapons, they are anti-material/vehicle weapons sometimes pressed into anti personnel roles.for my purposes, they won't be. there won't be lots of options, but essentially 2d6, 2d8, and 2d10 for 5.56, 7.62, and .50, respectively.
Those figures are a bit misleading ina way. There was a study done shortly after WWII, that showed most soldiers didn't really aim as much as pointed the gun in the direction of the enemy. Then compare the type of standard issue weapon. M1 Garand semi automatic with an 8 round en bloc clip, vs the M16A1 fully automatic with a 20 round magazine. It's no surprise that the Vietnam era fired more rounds.Those ranges indicate the distance at which the round is considered to have significant lethality. In practice, actually hitting a target at those ranges is a rather different proposition. In WWII, something like 100,000 rounds were fired for each enemy casualty. In Vietnam, the figure was closer to 1,000,000.
Actually, I may be out by an order of magnitude, the stats might be 10,000 per casualty in WWII and 100,000 in Vietnam. My google-fu fails me but it's still a very big number.
I'm not sure what number of HP or wounds are common in your system you are using. But while I can get behind 2d6 for 5.56 N, and 2d8 for 7.62 N. 2d10 is probably not enough for .50 BMG. A single .50 round is straight death to a human. Maybe a limb shot will only dismember that limb. I guess there's a slim possibility that you might survive that. But head, and torso shots pretty much regardless of positioning is a kill shot. Remember .50 caliber weapons are not anti personnel weapons, they are anti-material/vehicle weapons sometimes pressed into anti personnel roles.
Well I wasn't thinking kicking it up to 2d12, I was thinking more along the lines of 4d10. Center of mass kills you, and the guy behind you, and the engine block of the buick behind him. Its penetration and damage potential shouldn't be measure in small arms terms. It's the first step in vehicular weaponry. Depending on the load, and the source you put faith in. I penetrates 20-35mm of hardened steel armor at over a hundred yards. 85% chance of instant death on a center of mass is incorrect. It is 100%, period. I'm not telling you how to design you game or what have you. I'm just saying 2d10, 2d10 in your scale doesn't do it justice.
Right. All I'm saying is that if you HIT center of mass full on, you rolled better than average. That 85% chance is the chance that you hit full on center of mass.
also, there is plenty of room for static adds here. I'm using Mythras as a base, and .50 cal there does 2d10+4, which kicks up that 85% up to 99%, and the chance to remove the chest from 28% to 64%. removal of the head goes up to 90%. my intent was to merely peg the .50 cal into a die range, even if I add some static mods onto it.
I was fooling around with Call of Cthulhu damages at one point. Something I liked but didn't pursue too far was playing with the average damage. Lots of ways to hit the same max numbers, say a max damage of 10, you can roll 1d10,1d8+2, 2d4+2 or 1d6+4 for an average of 5.5, 6.5, 7, and 7.5. It gave a little more room for variety without running right off the top of the scale. The higher the max damage the more options you get.
You run into compression with the big rifles, 2d8 for 2400 ft/lb .30 cal rifles and 2d10 for the 13,000 ft/lb .50 cal leaves you no room for all those monster 4,6,8000 ft/lb big game rifles, but .50 cal doing 2d6+8....
Just a thought.
Nod, i think for my purposes those big game rifles are going to be sufficiently rare that I won't really have to worry about them particularly. I can alway go with 2d10+4 for .50 and 2d8+2 or +4 for .416 Rigby and .338 Lapua Magnum if it comes up. or put them at the lower end of the 2d10 range, or give them some AP capability. It doesn't have to scale directly with the energy, being like 7x 5.56.
With most rifle bullets the bullet will shoot through and out the other side of a human-sized target. Most of the energy of a big game round is lost against a human but would be absorbed by an elephant. If you really needed it you could have 'human' and 'large creature' damage ratings, which might be relevant to game settings involving tentacled horrors of one sort or another.Nod, i think for my purposes those big game rifles are going to be sufficiently rare that I won't really have to worry about them particularly. I can alway go with 2d10+4 for .50 and 2d8+2 or +4 for .416 Rigby and .338 Lapua Magnum if it comes up. or put them at the lower end of the 2d10 range, or give them some AP capability. It doesn't have to scale directly with the energy, being like 7x 5.56.
There are hundreds of possible calibres if you include civilian kit, and your dice mechanic probably doesn't have the resolution to differentiate between them. I would suggest that you lump them into broad categories and don't get too caught up as to the actual calibre. You'll also find that there are certain categories with dozens of models that wind up with exactly the same stats.Nod, i think for my purposes those big game rifles are going to be sufficiently rare that I won't really have to worry about them particularly. I can alway go with 2d10+4 for .50 and 2d8+2 or +4 for .416 Rigby and .338 Lapua Magnum if it comes up. or put them at the lower end of the 2d10 range, or give them some AP capability. It doesn't have to scale directly with the energy, being like 7x 5.56.
Likely I would modify Overpenetration, which is already a thing in Mythras.With most rifle bullets the bullet will shoot through and out the other side of a human-sized target. Most of the energy of a big game round is lost against a human but would be absorbed by an elephant. If you really needed it you could have 'human' and 'large creature' damage ratings, which might be relevant to game settings involving tentacled horrors of one sort or another.
There are hundreds of possible calibres if you include civilian kit, and your dice mechanic probably doesn't have the resolution to differentiate between them. I would suggest that you lump them into broad categories and don't get too caught up as to the actual calibre. You'll also find that there are certain categories with dozens of models that wind up with exactly the same stats.
I did a lot of moderns some years ago, and wrote great tomes of stats at one point. After that I decided to collapse it down to a list of about 30 generics because I couldn't be arsed. This is the list from memory (probably missed one or two) and covers the majority of stuff that (a) actually exists and (b) might get used in a RPG.
There are a few assumptions here, notably that the dice mechanic is unlikely to have the resolution to differentiate between similar cartridges (e.g. 5.56/5.45/7.62x39 ), although you could split them out if you want. There's also some stuff that might be appropriate to more tentacular genres so feel free to prune stuff you don't need.
I would suggest that you treat one offs - if someone wants a Derringer, 10mm[1], Deagle or something - on an ad-hoc basis and don't try to be too comprehensive in the base list.
[1] Sometimes known as 'Best Millimeter' by fanboys. It's quite powerful - about twice the muzzle energy of a 9mm, but a bit of a niche item. .40 S&W is a more practical implementation of the concept and one that people actually use.
- 9mm auto (Glock, SIG, Beretta etc.)
- .45 auto (mostly 1911s)
- .40 auto (Glock, SIG etc. For bonus points, merge, 9mm, .40 and .45 together if you really want to annoy fanboys)
- .38 revolver (snubs, saturday night specials or older police issue mainly)
- .357 magnum (S&W, Pythons)
- .44 magnum (With a 6.5" barrel these are nearly a foot long. Do you feel lucky?)
- Mouse guns (.22, .25, .32)
- .380 (9x18) pistol (PPK, Makarov - easy to conceal)
- .500 magnum (also .460, .454 - uber-revolvers, totally impractical for engaging stuff that shoots back but sometimes carried for bears or hunting horrors)
- 5.7 auto (MAIN POINT IS EXTREME PRICE)[2]
- Scary black rifle (AK, AR etc, also come in short barreled variants such as AKSU-74)
- Battle rifle (M14, FAL, G3)
- Plinker (.22)
- Varmint rifle (Often firing the same ammunition as scary black rifles, but usually not so black and scary; many other calibres are also produced. Large magazines are outlawed in some jurisdictions).
- Carbine (really a genre of 1, a bit less powerful than a scary black rifle but quite common in some parts of the world).
- Milsurp rifle (Enfield, Garand, Moisin - Arm a family of 5 for $500; various calibres with roughly similar ballistics. Armour piercing ammunition is sometimes legally available for certain milsurps)
- Hunting rifle (Like a milsurp but prettier - sometimes known as a 'Thirty ought six' or 'Fudd Gun' but dozens of possible calibres. Don't bother to try and differentiate calibres.)
- Big Game rifle (H&H doubles, Weatherby Mk 5 etc. A new H&H double will set you back about £100,000. Eurpoean ones run to about £15-20k, Bolt actions about £5-10k. Weatherbys are at the cheap end of this.)
- Lever gun (.30-30, .45-70 - higher rate of fire than a bolt-action fudd gun)
- Machine pistol (MAC-10 and suchlike, small but hard to control - yay collateral damage!)
- Submachinegun (Uzi, MP5, Thompson)
- Personal defence weapon (P90, MP7)
- Shotgun (also sawn off shotguns)
- 7.62 sniper (SVD, M110, SSG etc. - note that more accurate hunting rifles can be tricked out to function as a sniper rifle)
- .338 sniper (Long range)
- .50 sniper (Barrett etc.)
- Light machinegun (Bren, BAR)
- Light support weapon (M240, RPK)
- General purpose machinegun (MAG, MG3, M60, PK)
[2] For those wondering about the context of this, see IVAN.