Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

The problem with this is you don't know who has or had not done the research.)

 

A small amount of the research I have done is up on my website for all to see. So far I've seen nothing from anyone else.

 

 

If I felt the need to add more "realistic" rules for small arms fire to my games, I would heavily research it before doing so. I simply do not feel the need to do so at this time)

 

And yet you feel you can agrue with someone who has. You do realize that you just proved my point for me don't you?

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

My post was in reply to the implied suggestion that .50 handgun in HERO was somehow insufficient at stopping a Char 10 normal.

 

No one made such a claim. Black Lotus did state he wanted more of difference between a .22 and and .50 AE, but that isn't anything like the strawman you were tiltling at.

 

 

How do the current rules make small calibur rifles into instant death machines?

 

Use the offical optional rules needed to make a .22 LR (1d6-1K in HERO) the 95% instant kill change desired by Black Lotus. Reduce that to 70% because I feel it was overstated.

 

Now apply those rules consistently.

 

What is the instant kill chance of a little .223 out of a M16 (2d6K in HERO) with those rules in place?

 

Don't even bother with a head hit. The .223 is doing 280% of the average damage and doesn't need the x2 head modifier.

 

Come on people, this isn't rocket science.

 

 

 

Just about everyone I've run games for seem to like them, so I must be doing something right.

 

People like different things in different games. More people like D20 than like HERO, is that a reason to claim everyone should use D20?

 

 

 

 

I merely pointed out that *I* think the Hero rules do a fine job of simulating dramatic reality when it comes to small arms and their effects on people. Its my opinion, I'm entittled to it and I don't deserve to be attacked for it. Neither does anyone else.

 

"Dramatic Reality" is *NOT* the question before us. Actual reality (or rather the degree of closeness to actural reality) is.

 

If you had only pointed out that you like how the current rules *play*, I would have no reason to do other than let you have your opinion. If that is your *only* claim at this point- I wish you the best of luck in playing the game as you see fit.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Fox1 has a point. He can back his claims up with legitimate, verifiable research data, and displays his findings publicly; you've done nothing of the sort. Look, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when someone researches the subject before forming their opinion, that opinion is superior to unfounded ones unless and until you go and do your own research.

 

Those whose opinions are pulled out of their bum DESERVE to be mocked, in order to motivate them to do real research on the issue. Without solid data to back up your opinion, your arguments carry little weight.

 

I disagree, I have done extensive research as have many of the others on these boards, the simple fact is there is no one valid opinion in reality or in a game. Fox1 has come in as a self proclaimed master of all knowledge related to guns, I have seen nothing more concrete than credable sources. The snotty responses have mostly been towards people explaining the rules as written, that is verifiable, just open up the book and read. As far as Fox's rules they are not bad but certainily nothing to be spewing insults at the rest of us, I've seen better.

 

Anybody can claim to be an expert but unless he can show me a published work or a pay stub for "official gun guru" with his name on it, he is no more qualified than any of us other gun nuts, we have all read alot on the subject. I've been part of gun discussions online with Kevin Dockery, an actual published verifiable "expert" on the subject and also RPG designer (The Morrow Project), he has a bit of a reputation for "not suffering idiots" but you know he is a hell of alot more cordial than Fox.

 

There have been many good gun threads on these boards, and it is a subject that can raise peoples emotions but rarely have I seen one devolve to this point. There have been several examples of people being attacked who are agreeing with him for the most part but he seems unable to tolerate even a slight differance of opinion.

 

When I first read his website I thought there might be something of value in the discussion but all I've seen is insults, little real data mostly opinion. If you want to get people to change their thinking you must educate them, that involves the ability to disagree and explain yourself not just dismissing all other opinions as BS.

 

Hopefully there might be something useful to come out of this but since you the original poster seem to be taking the side of the one who slammed your post I don't really see the point anymore.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

I've been part of gun discussions online with Kevin Dockery' date=' an actual published verifiable "expert" on the subject and also RPG designer (The Morrow Project), [/quote']

 

Pity his KE views were discredited in the mid to late 80s. To be fair to him, he was in good company in his errors at the time.

 

I say 'views' because I can not find any reference to him as anything other than a soldier, writer, gunsmith and historian, none of which makes him a verifiable expert on the subject of wound ballistics unlike the sources I quote on my website.

 

You wouldn't per chance have anything more recent to brag about than stuff done more than twenty years ago?

 

Hopefully there might be something useful to come out of this but since you the original poster seem to be taking the side of the one who slammed your post I don't really see the point anymore.

 

Perhaps he's been listening and judging the debate on its merits.

 

Besides, I didn't slam him.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Pity his KE views were discredited in the mid to late 80s. To be fair to him, he was in good company in his errors at the time.

 

I say 'views' because I can not find any reference to him as anything other than a soldier, writer, gunsmith and historian, none of which makes him a verifiable expert on the subject of wound ballistics unlike the sources I quote on my website.

 

You wouldn't per chance have anything more recent to brag about than stuff done more than twenty years ago?

 

My point was not to brag, name drop, or to claim his research is better than yours, my point was that here is a person who has actually made a living with his gun writing, who has handled practically every major weapon system in service and many that never made it past the prototype stage, who has had access to information most of us will never get to look at and regardless of your opinion is considered quite knowlegeable (and therefore peons are more willing to take abuse from) but he is far more civil than you, someone who can not (or at least has not proven you can) make any claims beyond the rest of us, research from books, studies and the web. Are you a coroner, spec ops, a physicist employed by the FBI or the military? I doubt it, you are probably just another gun bunny who is interested in modifiying the rules in the HERO system to fit your perception of reality like the rest of us.

 

It would be nice to see a little less attitude and more discussion but unfortunately it seems none of us are worthy. So until I can see something productive bye, bye

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

To all those who have responded to my "do your research or your opinion carries no weight" post: please cite your sources so that I can check them. Fox1 cites his sources on his website, and I am willing to check your sources, as well. You haven't named any yet, though, so I can't go and see for myself -- simply saying you've done research isn't enough. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

To all those who have responded to my "do your research or your opinion carries no weight" post: please cite your sources so that I can check them. Fox1 cites his sources on his website' date=' and I am willing to check your sources, as well. You haven't named any yet, though, so I can't go and see for myself -- simply saying you've done research isn't enough. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.[/quote']

 

 

Guess you didn't read my earlier post

 

If you have the means to buy it (or perhaps your local library has it) there is an excellent book called Understanding Ballistics, it covers very complex topics but is written for normal people, not rocket scientists. The book includes many topics to help people make an educated choice when picking a hunting rifle or self defence gun, while it is not targeted towards gamers it is an excellent reference for gamers who want a better understanding of how guns work.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0964559846/qid=1123183200/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1648782-9064120?v=glance&s=books

 

This is but one of many books I have but I recommend it because the author covers many of the popular theories past and present for determining the capabilities of firearms (this is what makes it great for gaming), he also gets into rather detailed explainations for trajectories, recoil forces, the effects of weather etc. If you can only buy one book this one should make you pretty happy. At $24 its cheaper than most game supplements these days.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

To all those who have responded to my "do your research or your opinion carries no weight" post: please cite your sources so that I can check them. Fox1 cites his sources on his website' date=' and I am willing to check your sources, as well. You haven't named any yet, though, so I can't go and see for myself -- simply saying you've done research isn't enough. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.[/quote']

 

Excellent idea. Be careful of the dating if anyone takes you up on your offer.

 

 

 

Let me give you a little brief history so that you understand what's behind my warning.

 

Serious study of firearms and wound ballistics took off at the end of the 19th century and was basically completed (for the weapons of the time) in the early 20th by such greats as Theodor Kocher and General Hatcher to name a couple of men whose influence far outlive their own lives.

 

Things were rather settled until the 1950s, at this point a number of designers and gun writers appeared who championed the idea of very small high velocity bullets as improvement of the breed. One could almost say the era was kicked of by the .357 mag and .270 Winchester.

 

In the sixties the development of the M16 further the trend athough actual understanding of how it managed to create the wounds it did wouldn't become complete for decades.

 

The cult of velocity (or KE) being the end all in firearm design was on a roll.

 

The final seal was locked into place by researchers (including Bruchey WJ Jr.) working for the FBI attempting to determine the best weapons for law enforcement. Firing weapons into gelatin blocs, they measured what they thought was the most significant element of 'stopping power', the temporary wound cavity upon which they based the rating system called the Relative Incapacitation Index.

 

With an official government stamp on it, it appeared to many that a new era of firearms knowledge had dawned. The trickle to 9mm and other small but high KE value weapons turned into a waterfall.

 

By the time of the first modern era rpgs, the 'value' of KE was a given to anyone doing research on the subject (and willing to ignore older sources in favor of new). Games ranging from GURPS, Morrow Project, Champions, and Phoenix Command all based their in-game firearm values on it.

 

Things starting falling apart in the latter half of the 1980s. Events such as the famous FBI Miami Shootout caused a re-examination of the whole concept of wound ballistics.

 

Work by a number of people (M.L. Fackler, M.D, working for the Letterman Army Institute of Research is perhaps THE name in the field) revealed the errors of the RII methods. Oddly enough, the resulting work showed that the original concepts developed pre-1950 were still highly valid.

 

Since 1986 all further creditable work in this field has supported Dr. Fackler. I know of no study or research that credits KE as the primary factor in wound determination.

 

That said, there was some value in the rush to high velocity weapons- not in wounding as such, but in flatter shooting weapons. Add in advances in bullet design (some by near accident as in the case of the M-16's .223 round), and effective low recoiling weapons have appeared. There's typically always some good with the bad.

[Inu]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

My sources are the same as Fox1's. I've just come to different conclusions in certain areas.

*In one case, it seems as if he's taking commentary intended only for pistols (that the only important elements are wound placement, penetration depth and width of the bullet) and applying them across the board. The very sources he quotes indicate, for instance, that temporary cavity and fragmentation happen with much greater regularity with high-velocity rounds (such as most rifles), increasing their damage potential. Velocity matters; it's not the be-all and end-all, but it does matter.

*He deals briefly with the issue of tumbling, saying it's unrelible. Perhaps most systems are unrealistic for including tumbling in all damage at all ranges... but then Fox1 ignores tumbling altogether.

*There remain unexplored avenues in his house rules, although these are areas that have not come under argument that I've seen. Some have been touched on, like Str Min. I find it difficult to accept that a submachinegun firing at full auto would have so low a Str min compared to a pistol of even lighter calibre. Certainly, an SMG would have a lower Str min than a pistol, due to being heavier and having a lower recoil. However, there is no effect on this from autofire. Perhaps the autofire recoil effects are taken care of by the autofire mods, but this still seems a bit of a break from realism here. Perhaps, however, it's based on real-life experiences with which I am unfamiliar.

 

So I say that his house rules are not as realistic as he might like. They certainly do not give him clearance to slam all the views of others who offer alternate routes to realism. Even if it did, it's the action of an antisocial type - I'd much rather have multiple approaches than one single approach, and pick and choose what elements I like from each.

 

I'm not proposing my own house rules here. I have already done that on the Dark Champions forum, involving some even more radical departures (I have changed my mind on a few of those rules since, but I haven't had time to work on them). I'm just objecting to Fox1's habit of coming onto threads and decrying others' because they don't match his view of reality. (And then whining when he gets called on it.)

 

(Furthermore, he has a habit of offering short, pithy, barely-explained statements and expecting others to be on the same wavelength as himself. This has led to most of the miscommunications on this thread.)

 

So don't mind me, I'm just enjoying myself.

 

My apologies, Black Lotus, for barging in on your thread. I was just full of beans when I was reading this, and got finally too annoyed to ignore it yet again. From the look of it, Fox1's managed to annoy a few people besides me.

[MadCow]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

On a related note, have any of you ever checked out the Guns! Guns! Guns! (or 3G3) book by BTRC? It is supposed to be a generic gun creation book for various game systems including HERO, and it uses mathemathical calculations that include stuff like kinetic energy to generate the stats.

 

Those who have seen it - is it useful? (as opposed to "realistic")... frankly the discussion of kinetic energy and energy transfer is partially Greek to me...

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

*In one case' date=' it seems as if he's taking commentary intended only for pistols (that the only important elements are wound placement, penetration depth and width of the bullet) and applying them across the board.[/quote']

 

Misrepresented, one of the sources speaks directly to high velocity rifle effects, and comes to the same conclusion as pistols with the exception of fragmentation, which we'll get to in a moment.

 

 

*He deals briefly with the issue of tumbling, saying it's unrelible. Perhaps most systems are unrealistic for including tumbling in all damage at all ranges... but then Fox1 ignores tumbling altogether.

 

Inu failed to read the entire site, or even the notes on the weapon charts.

 

Bullet flip (not tumbling, that's a incorrect term actually) and fragmentation are covered under the link for Ammunition Types and are directly referenced by the weapons that take advantage of this effect.

 

 

Some have been touched on, like Str Min. I find it difficult to accept that a submachinegun firing at full auto would have so low a Str min compared to a pistol of even lighter calibre.

 

This misconception is my fault in part. The STR Min given are of course for single shot function.

 

An old rule in HERO applied a +1 STR modifier for each additional shot after the first, I believe it has been moved in 5th edition to an optional rule in Dark Champions concerning recoil. I haven't taken the time to place this on the website as a house rule as of yet, but it is coming likely in a slightly modified form.

 

 

I see we're out of Inu's points.

 

Except this one:

 

 

So I say that his house rules are not as realistic as he might like. They certainly do not give him clearance to slam all the views of others who offer alternate routes to realism.

 

My 'slams' are only given to those who insist on presenting mathmatical impossiblities and/or proven faulty science as if it were fact. And do so without providing online sources or in the case of a link to a single book- quotes from those sources.

 

Anyone rolling out that KE nonsense or spouting that the games optional rules can achieve a mathematical impossibility (i.e. increasing the HERO value pistol lethality without vastly increasing HERO value rifle lethality to unreasoned levels), all the while not offering any counter evidence- frankly are not people who should be handled with kid gloves.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Those who have seen it - is it useful? (as opposed to "realistic")... frankly the discussion of kinetic energy and energy transfer is partially Greek to me...

 

Sadly it's a KE based product, so I have no use for it of any kind. HERO and a good reference book does as well.

 

Now GURPS vehicles...

 

That I'm think I'm falling in love with.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

On a related note, have any of you ever checked out the Guns! Guns! Guns! (or 3G3) book by BTRC? It is supposed to be a generic gun creation book for various game systems including HERO, and it uses mathemathical calculations that include stuff like kinetic energy to generate the stats.

 

Those who have seen it - is it useful? (as opposed to "realistic")... frankly the discussion of kinetic energy and energy transfer is partially Greek to me...

 

Yes I have, and Fox1's dismissal of energy is one of the major faults in his theories (in my opinion), while energy is questionable in its relation to damaging living targets, energy is directly related to a bullets penetration, simply put assuming all things are equal 2 bullets of the same diameter, one with 1000 ft/lbs behind it and the other with 2000 ft/lbs behind it you probably have a pretty good idea of which one is going to perform better (one is going to go about 2x as deep as the other), change the size of the bullets so we have a 5mm and a 10mm bullet, both with 1000 ft/lbs of energy, guess what, the 5mm bullet is going to penetrate much better. This is an area that there is no dispute (at least in the real world, there are formulas used by weapons designers far more complicated than I can figure out that are based primarily on mass and velocity (which is where you develop energy), of course they also add in all sorts of hardness factors, slope etc but the basic energy + penetration is there). Fox1's own website talks about how important penetration is, odd that the most easily obtained, measurable, repeatable value is dismissed by him. The tricky part is figuring out what the resulting hole does if its in living tissue.

[Inu]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

My 'slams' are only given to those who insist on presenting mathmatical impossiblities and/or proven faulty science as if it were fact. And do so without providing online sources or in the case of a link to a single book- quotes from those sources.

 

Anyone rolling out that KE nonsense or spouting that the games optional rules can achieve a mathematical impossibility (i.e. increasing the HERO value pistol lethality without vastly increasing HERO value rifle lethality to unreasoned levels), all the while not offering any counter evidence- frankly are not people who should be handled with kid gloves.

Yeah, I missed the point about tumbling being covered under the ammo entry. I would still disagree with the exact statting, but at this point such an argument would sound like sour grapes, so I'm not gonna get into it.

 

My basic beef remains, however. While I've seen you act quite civilly in many occasions, as soon as the holy grail of 'realism' is invoked, you become extraordinarily hard-nosed and acerbic. While you have every right to defend your own constructs (having put work into them), it's still, well, antisocial to cut into others in the way you do. Yes, some theories have been blown out of the water. Those theories, however, remain far more publicised than their attacks, and for far longer. You decide, however, to simply attack - and then get into these extended arguments due to not-fully-explained statements that leave much open to interpretation. It's only after five pages of this that I understand exactly what you were getting at in several posts.

 

Basically? You could stand to be more civil. I'm taking my lumps here - I made errors, and will cop to them. But damn, dude. You'd generate a lot better feeling towards your views if you explained yourself fully and weren't quite so much of a pedant.

 

As for systems, I'm gonna stick with my synthesising of house rules, striking for a balance of realism vs what I basically want from a game. What I'd kill for, however, is a good system of rapid/autofire, which balanced recoil vs str vs follow-up shots.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

energy is directly related to a bullets penetration

 

Badly stated.

 

As a recent mythbusters graphically showed, increasing energy can actually result in reduced penetration. You can't really know the outcome unless you consider bullet construction and the target as well as the velocity.

 

Toadmaster also fails to mention cross-sectional density, which has major importance for penetration. I however in my rules do not.

 

 

Fox1's own website talks about how important penetration is, odd that the most easily obtained, measurable, repeatable value is dismissed by him.

 

Not true.

 

While the base damage is rightfully determined by the size of the bullet, low penetration will result in that damage value being reduced. Meanwhile high penetration will result in improved performance vs. armor.

 

Thus as example, the .45 ACP does more damage but takes greater reduction from encountered armor while the 9mm (same KE level) does less damage but takes significantly less of a reduction from encountered armor. Meanwhile the .380 ACP loses a DC because its penetration value is too low to meet the threshold.

 

The subject isn't ignored at all. It's just not used directly to determine base damage.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Basically? You could stand to be more civil. I'm taking my lumps here - I made errors' date=' and will cop to them. But damn, dude. You'd generate a lot better feeling towards your views if you explained yourself fully and weren't quite so much of a pedant.[/quote']

 

You're correct.

 

 

As for systems, I'm gonna stick with my synthesising of house rules, striking for a balance of realism vs what I basically want from a game.

 

I've basically done the same. All the work on my website was only a small degree of movement toward realism, it was still balanced by gaming needs.

 

My goal was to remove the most unrealistic elements from HERO while still playing an action-adventure genre game, not to make a perfectly realistic simulation.

 

 

What I'd kill for, however, is a good system of rapid/autofire, which balanced recoil vs str vs follow-up shots.

 

I'm giving that consideration now.

 

Something missing from my house rules is the fact that low recoiling weapons are much easier to handle in rapid fire. So I'm playing with various ideas as to how to address it without overbalancing HERO.

 

The first pass will likely find it's way to the website within a few days.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Seems to me there are a few general factors that relate to how a bullet does damage (though we can't always know exacly HOW those factors effect the damage). There may well be many more not listed here.

 

• Kinetic energy of projectile at time of impact.
  
• Mass, composition AND dimensions of projectile.
  
• Configuration of projectile (FMJ, AP, Frangible, etcetera).
  
• The density, elasticity, hardness, and other traits possessed by projectile's target.
  
• The spin/ aerodynamic behavior of the projectile.
  
• The angle of entry into certain targets of complicated makeup.
  

 

Again, I don't know quite HOW these factors effect the gross damage done by a projectile, but I do know that they must affect it in some way, inversely or proportionally, for greater or lesser effect.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

My basic beef remains' date=' however. While I've seen you act quite civilly in many occasions, as soon as the holy grail of 'realism' is invoked, you become extraordinarily hard-nosed and acerbic. While you have every right to defend your own constructs (having put work into them), it's still, well, antisocial to cut into others in the way you do. Yes, some theories have been blown out of the water. Those theories, however, remain far more publicised than their attacks, and for far longer. You decide, however, to simply attack - and then get into these extended arguments due to not-fully-explained statements that leave much open to interpretation. It's only after five pages of this that I understand exactly what you were getting at in several posts.[/quote']

 

The funny thing to me is I have seen very few challenges to his work, at the most some have suggested similar results can be obtained within the rules and apparently I am being faulted for not providing a quote in a book I am not even quoting from, I am simply suggesting it to somebody who wants to learn about ballistics, I don't even disagree with alot of the stuff at his site, I simply suggest that there is more than one way to get similar results and I am blasted for using "that KE nonsense", oddly my results are repeatable and leave very little room for subjective results (favoring my pet rounds).

 

BTW I see there was a post made while I hit the quote button, so Cross sectional density is basically just a fancy way of saying two bullets of equal size and weight which is what I said in the first place. (to be specific a round lead ball 9mm in diameter will be lighter than a bullet shaped ball 9mm in diameter, there for at the same velocity the bullet will have more energy since energy is based on mass and velocity)

 

I said

 

energy is directly related to a bullets penetration, simply put assuming all things are equal 2 bullets of the same diameter, one with 1000 ft/lbs behind it and the other with 2000 ft/lbs behind it you probably have a pretty good idea of which one is going to perform better (one is going to go about 2x as deep as the other)

 

so yes I did mention cross sectional density and BTW I do use it both to determine piercing levels (better armor penetration) and 1/2 damage range (something I don't believe he uses all though he does allude to its importance related to bullet "tumble"

 

Oh well, its an interesting subject hope thhis doesn't turn others away from looking into it themselves.

[Inu]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

You're correct.

Thank you. Anyway, I consider that debate done. I apologise for errancies in my behaviour.

 

Anyway.

 

I'm giving that consideration now.

 

Something missing from my house rules is the fact that low recoiling weapons are much easier to handle in rapid fire. So I'm playing with various ideas as to how to address it without overbalancing HERO.

 

The first pass will likely find it's way to the website within a few days.

It's something missing from almost every game. Despite its deficiencies in certain areas, Phoenix Command was very good at doing this, if I remember the system right (my books have long since vanished). I loved that small differences in aiming time made such a large difference in accuracy - so you could fire as fast as you could pull the trigger, but you'd be more accurate if you took longer.

 

Then again, I don't seem to remember it took recoil into account... hmm.

 

Certainly, in almost every game I've seen, there's no reason to choose a smaller weapon over a larger, more damaging one, other than concealability. I've been working on this myself, but I'm yet to come up with a good system that fits into Hero.

 

('Course, we should probably start a new thread on this if we're gonna keep discussing it. Myself, though, I'm gonna be away from computer for a day or two, so I can't contribute.)

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

BTW I see there was a post made while I hit the quote button, so Cross sectional density is basically just a fancy way of saying two bullets of equal size and weight which is what I said in the first place.

 

I'm sorry, cross-sectional density does not mean equal size and weight.

 

 

 

energy is directly related to a bullets penetration, simply put assuming all things are equal 2 bullets of the same diameter, one with 1000 ft/lbs behind it and the other with 2000 ft/lbs behind it you probably have a pretty good idea of which one is going to perform better (one is going to go about 2x as deep as the other)

 

At this point, I almost... sadden to do this.

 

 

Please note the following article:

http://www.practical-defense.com/research/energy.pdf

 

Near the top of page two in reference to wound size and penetration:

 

"Energy does not accurately correlate with either of these factors . Penetration is a linear function of velocity and cross-sectional density of the bullet"

 

The whole article is worth reading, although it screw up badly at one point (which is way I don't reference it at my website).

 

By the way, this is the exact function I use to determine the penetration values at my website.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

('Course' date=' we should probably start a new thread on this if we're gonna keep discussing it. Myself, though, I'm gonna be away from computer for a day or two, so I can't contribute.)[/quote']

 

When you get back, kick off the thread. I'll have something solid by then.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

I'm sorry, cross-sectional density does not mean equal size and weight.

 

 

 

 

 

At this point, I almost... sadden to do this.

 

 

Please note the following article:

http://www.practical-defense.com/research/energy.pdf

 

Near the top of page two in reference to wound size and penetration:

 

"Energy does not accurately correlate with either of these factors . Penetration is a linear function of velocity and cross-sectional density of the bullet"

 

The whole article is worth reading. By the way, this is the exact function I use to determine the penetration values at my website.

 

 

Ok, obviously you need to take english comprehension, clearly my post alluded to cross section, equal size and weight means equal cross sectional density, I'm not writing this for physics teachers, I'm trying to make it understandable to the average person, I think someone without a chip on their juvenille know it all shoulder would have got that, but you are too mired in your delusions to catch that. As far as the article goes get sad all you like, I based much of my work on a similar article 4 years ago, I don't agree with the statement the KE is meaningless but agree with the basic tenant of the paper, this is not as impossible as you might think, some of us have the ability to take from many sources, combine them and find where the truth lies. The reality is we are not that different in our results, only how we get them. That and I can remain mostly civil even when talking to irritating immature paranoid prxxx with delusions of his own greatness. (well blew that one)

 

You might try being a little respectful of others even when you think they are full of it, you will go farther in life. Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open, now you even have me quoting hippy bumper stickers

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

You might try being a little respectful of others even when you think they are full of it' date=' you will go farther in life. Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open, now you even have me quoting hippy bumper stickers [/quote']

 

I'm sorry; it is not an indication of an open mind to accept incorrect information and plainly wrong physic formulas, no matter how committed the person offering them is. V*Cross-Sectional Density <> 1/2*M*V^2 by any measure, and I'm afraid the first is the correct forumula for firearm penetration and not the latter.

 

If it helps, I'm sure whatever rules you're using for your games work to your taste. But that's the best I can do.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Given that the DCs of a firearm can be up to doubled using CSLs, Haymakers, and even Martial Maneuvers if you are so generous, I am pretty happy with the tables in the main book. If I were to run a modern game I might even assign extra DCs instead of or in addition to OCV bonuses for surprise maneuvers, "critical hits," and the like.

 

That results in your smallest handgun doing up to 4 DCs, and your largest doing up to 14 DCs (though it will take a lot of skill or luck). Then doubled for a head shot? Yeah. Lethal enough any day of the week.

[Fox1]

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

 

Given that the DCs of a firearm can be up to doubled using CSLs' date=' Haymakers, and even Martial Maneuvers if you are so generous, I am pretty happy with the tables in the main book. If I were to run a modern game I might even assign extra DCs instead of or in addition to OCV bonuses for surprise maneuvers, "critical hits," and the like..[/quote']

 

I don't allow this use of CSL in my games, and for much the same reason I've so greatly restricted the player's ability to modify his BODY stat.

 

In addition (and even more important), this suggestion like the others made in this thread to use HERO's optional rules to bring pistols up to reasonable levels ignores the overwhelming effect on Rifles as they are raised to unrealistic and unmanage levels of damage.

 

Lastly, I need the weapons to be dangerous in the hands of anyone. A lucky hit in real life can injure or kill just as well as the most carefully aimed shot. I refuse to state that by default only the most skill shooters can somehow magically manage the upper end of weapon damage in any game I play.

 

If players in my game wish to aim better to cause more damage, the hit location rules are there for them.