MGT Only: Shooting a gun with laser sights? MgT2e+
- Thread starter Spinward Scout
- Start date
The military rifle I found the easiest to make snap shots with was the M16A1 with no bells and whistles. Light and handy, and it fitted me just right, so no time wasted getting the sights lined up.
Thinking about the thread's subject, a laser sight (and to some extent a red dot sight) largely gets around that issue of having the rifle fit well or having to practice a lot to make up for a poor fit. However, this is something that's well below the resolution of most games, and most players probably aren't interested in tracking which exact model (and what stock length, if variable, and so on) of rifle their characters have spent sufficient time on to avoid a snap-shot penalty.
Red dots ( also green dots and circles and dots inside circles) are replacements for traditional iron sights. Iron sight are often not properly aligned by novice and even to a degree experienced shooter. With some, but not extensive, practice they are faster to put on target. This is why they are preferred in many action shooting sports. Long range shooting such as snipers prefer telescopic optics (scopes).
At short ranges, say under 100 meters, no one worries about wind let along the curvature of the earth. this is where red dots are useful. At medium ranges, 100 to 300 yards, most good shooters will take wind into account along with shooting up hill or downhill. Some will us red dots, but often combined with a magnifier (scope). At extreme ranges, kilometers, then there is a lengthy list of factors that often require using a hand held ballistic computer. This is the realm of very expensive scopes.
At short ranges, say under 100 meters, no one worries about wind let along the curvature of the earth. this is where red dots are useful. At medium ranges, 100 to 300 yards, most good shooters will take wind into account along with shooting up hill or downhill. Some will us red dots, but often combined with a magnifier (scope). At extreme ranges, kilometers, then there is a lengthy list of factors that often require using a hand held ballistic computer. This is the realm of very expensive scopes.
Firearm
Yes - you have to account for wind and bullet drop.
Not nearly that high. Maybe +2 or +3.
Janitor_Prime
SOC-10
I have used a M68 Close Combat Optic "Red Dot" sight on the M4 Carbine in a lovely little garden spot in 2003, 2004, 2005. The AN/PAQ is a combination visible laser, IR laser, and IR flashlight or torch for the Brits. The squad leader had one to designate targets. The squad leader would use the pressure switch taped to the forward stock and shine the laser onto a target the whole squad is going to fire upon such as an enemy machinegun. The visible laser is a nice deterrent to civilians to stop or stay out of an area. Shine a laser on one and they know a rifle is aimed at them personally and this is not confusing.
The Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight (ACOG) is different, though similar in principal. This also boresighted to the rifle and then adjusted to the shooter. This has a red circle or triangle you center mass on your target. Additionally, this has stadia lines and can be used for determining range and using the scope with holds for greater distance. Considered a medium range optic. This requires classroom instruction and a regular range time to be proficient.
The firer absolutely must aim properly with the M68 or the ACOG. This is a sight that is aligned with the barrel using a bore sight. The firer is looking through their own iron sights. The firer has to hold their rifle properly and aim through the sights.
The laser is just a laser pointer. Aligned with the bore with a boresight. The firer could point the laser at something and if the laser is on it, then that is where the bullet is going to go. This would be close range unless your shooting at something pretty large like a city bus or a locomotive.
So what bonuses would I give for these?
M68, +1 at point blank and short range. One action to aim.
ACOG, +1 at point blank, short, and medium. One action to aim. Requires Gun Combat - 0
Laser, +2 at point blank, +1 at short. +2 to a intimidation roll. One action to aim. For the untrained, I would reduce the -3 modifier to -1 for point blank.
Things change rapidly and I have been out now for 20 years.
Just to add a twist, that we haven't discussed yet - over the past few years the LPVO (low power variable optic) has come into play as well. This is in many ways (although there are some variations) a merger of the red dot and the magnified scopes we have previously discussed. For example, the one on my main setup is a 1-6 power with a dot I can adjust the brightness on (to include night vision only dimness) and a reticle marked in a way I can do basic size/range estimations.
No - it's not quite as simple and fast as my red dot only optics; nor is it as precision as my long range scope on a rifle intended for more distance. But, it gives a good balance for interior work up to about 300 meters - which, as Janitor noted, is where most work gets done. (And, for my personal preference, I absolutely prefer it to the ACOG). It also takes training to effectively use, particularly under stress - just like any of the newer technologies have over history.
To bring this back in Traveller terms - I would picture future improvements being more digitally interfaced, particularly if you get things like enhanced helmets etc. involved. Simpler to "use," as in built in software might do some of the work for you. Smaller/lighter is always a thing - the red dots we are using now are a significantly smaller footprint than what we had in 2005. And so on...
Or, arguably, something like what I currently have may still be pretty common. Easy to train troops of various tech levels with. Mechanical and reliable. And all that. After all, we are still selling rifles and pistols at TL 7/8 that aren't horribly different than TL 4 - and where you could easily train people up and down in that range.
No - it's not quite as simple and fast as my red dot only optics; nor is it as precision as my long range scope on a rifle intended for more distance. But, it gives a good balance for interior work up to about 300 meters - which, as Janitor noted, is where most work gets done. (And, for my personal preference, I absolutely prefer it to the ACOG). It also takes training to effectively use, particularly under stress - just like any of the newer technologies have over history.
To bring this back in Traveller terms - I would picture future improvements being more digitally interfaced, particularly if you get things like enhanced helmets etc. involved. Simpler to "use," as in built in software might do some of the work for you. Smaller/lighter is always a thing - the red dots we are using now are a significantly smaller footprint than what we had in 2005. And so on...
Or, arguably, something like what I currently have may still be pretty common. Easy to train troops of various tech levels with. Mechanical and reliable. And all that. After all, we are still selling rifles and pistols at TL 7/8 that aren't horribly different than TL 4 - and where you could easily train people up and down in that range.
Badenov
SOC-13
The largest change between TL4 and TL7/8 firearms is the ammo rather than the gun. They've done more tricks with special rounds, hot loads, teflon, etc, that were not yet possible at the end of TL4. The big advance for TL4 was black powder to modern propellant, which itself was a huge change for ammo. Sort of. What actually happened, as I understand it, was the ammunition itself shrunk so that modern propellant performance was about the same as black powder performance, and the big change was lighter ammo that you could carry a lot more of and get (roughly) the performance you were used to.
It does make you wonder what happens to firearms, and ammo of course, to keep them relevant in TL15. In MgT1, modern ammo types like DSAP in a TL5 rifle can hurt people in anything short of Battle Dress (and can hurt them even in BD with a good roll). Ironically, the higher TL Advanced Combat Rifle family get a reduced benefit from DSAP ammo, so your best bet is to get that TL5 Garand out of your great (x137) grandpa's closet and put some higher TL ammo in it. Not your ideal combat choice, but it's only a whisker less effective than the TL10 accelerated sniper rifle.
Traveller, as a game, seems not to be written by infantry weapons experts (a conclusion I reach based on the omission from the Central Supply Catalog of items I would expect to see), so there's a lot of issues with bringing in RL items and expectations, but I would be wildly happy to see some sort of guide that is curated by subject matter experts as the knowledgable folks here have chimed in about modern optics. I would like to see how things play out in the game at that point.
Janitor_Prime
SOC-10
Diveguy and Badenov, I refer you to works by Kevin Dockery. One of the original authors of the Morrow Project and a non fiction writer on firearms too.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Basically, infantry weapons are meant to kill humans.
If the opposition makes it harder to do so, by, say, giving them armoured protection, the weapon systems have to evolve to become more effective.
Since we'd like to do it, without endangering ourselves unnecessarily, we invented missiles.
And now that we discovered protection that will work, mostly, against those missiles, sidearms have to upgrade to more effective delivery systems, at the moment, a heavier bullet, and longer effective range.
So, by technological level fifteen, infantry likely will be drones, kamikaze or reusable, or very heavily armed, armoured, and trained humans.
Or both, mutated into Space Marines, with rocket propelled autocannons as sidearms.
If the opposition makes it harder to do so, by, say, giving them armoured protection, the weapon systems have to evolve to become more effective.
Since we'd like to do it, without endangering ourselves unnecessarily, we invented missiles.
And now that we discovered protection that will work, mostly, against those missiles, sidearms have to upgrade to more effective delivery systems, at the moment, a heavier bullet, and longer effective range.
So, by technological level fifteen, infantry likely will be drones, kamikaze or reusable, or very heavily armed, armoured, and trained humans.
Or both, mutated into Space Marines, with rocket propelled autocannons as sidearms.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Miller was a vet, Dougherty who did the merc gun design rule book writes gun books. CT may not be aging well with the add on scopes and such but the system definitely treats guns as having very individual handling characteristics.
Badenov
SOC-13
That's very good to know, and suggests this will be a more comprehensive book than others have been. The volume of comments on scopes and scope-ish things in this thread point to a wealth of possibilities for players.
Janitor, I'm very familiar with him - played Morrow back in 1st edition days. Yes, Kevin did probably some of the earliest RPG work on bringing actual firearms knowledge to games.
Badenov, this gets to the root question of any RPG setting - how "real" do you want certain things, and how much of that should be "recognizable" in the modern world? For Traveller look at the countless threads on spaceship mechanics, FTL, anti-gravity, stellar systems, and so on... Fantasy is every debate between feudalism, magic structures, religious sects, and so on. And - there's no wrong answer! Find what you and your group love (at least is my motto).
As I've said in other posts, there was a time I would nerd out over the minutia of small arms and enhancements. "The ABC Brand optic has the 2 MOA dot which is vastly superior to the 4 MOA, I should get a bonus!" - and all the other bs. Now? It's great flavor text for your characters, but in most cases I don't sweat the mechanic impacts to the game. Partly because it's just a rabbit hole of crazy - partly from real world stuff of seeing the range of weapons and training in the real world, and the quirks of Murphy. As you said, just because it's a TL 5 SMLE running .303, doesn't mean I want to be downrange when things get spicy.
Badenov
SOC-13
So, the problem is Traveller attempts to be very realistic in so many areas of rules, and so I expect things to be realistic broadly across the ruleset. So when I see glaring conflicts of things that I am familiar with, it makes it very hard to suspend disbelief and just play the game.
The MgT1 central supply catalog contains a TL10 item called Accelerated Sniper Rifle, which does a base 5d6 damage per hit. There is, at TL6, a heavy machinegun that does 5d6 also. Given the text entry for the machinegun, this is probably something very like a Browning M2, and that would imply that the Accelerated Sniper Rifle is something like a Barrett or similar, which uses the same ammunition. But TL6 is slightly late for a Browning M2, which showed up at the very leading edge of TL5, and TL10 is 2-3 whole tech levels late for the Barrett, which exists today.
So, if I am playing an adventurer on a TL8 planet, should I be able to buy a 5d6 rifle?
Janitor_Prime
SOC-10
A M2 browning is over 120lbs with tripod, cradle, ammunition, or any optics. A M82 Barret is approximately 30lbs. There is quite a variety of ammunition available.
I would presume a sniper rifle is 12lbs or less, the cartridge is smaller, and you can carry more of them. The essence of tech level progression.
Badenov
SOC-13
This doesn't answer my question, though. Do I get to find this item on a TL8 planet? I'm not nearly as wrapped up in the secondary stats, like mass, but TL off by 2-3 is kind of a big deal to me.
Janitor_Prime
SOC-10
The answer is Yes. The tech progression effected weight encumbrance and magazine depth, not damage.
Because at TL8 you could just as well haul around a grenade launcher and one shot folks with a 40mm High Explosive Dual Purpose grenade to the torso. How many dice is a ball of RDX the size of a walnut?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
We're still using heavy machine guns, circa Great Patriotic War technology.
So, yes, you'd find the equivalent, likely locally sourced.
So, yes, you'd find the equivalent, likely locally sourced.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
One thing that popped out to me when reviewing the Traveller personal weapon tree is how the increase in weapon power requires mitigation to keep them within the human operating form factor.
Gyrostabilization, recoil dampening, for ACR/Gauss and then later on powered armor suits and grav assist systems helps with wrangling the FG/PGMP class of weapons all keeps them within the ability of the human to fire like a regular TL5 firearm.
I should also mention that putting a super bullet in an Enfield is a recipe for destroying the weapon. Any chemical propelled round as Striker calls them is predicated on a barrel that can handle the pressures. If you fire a TL10 bullet, the Enfield barrel better be TL10 make.
I don’t know the specific weapon cited, but I believe given the classic progessions that this would be an accelerator weapon- an updated version of a gyroc round, a rocket propelled bullet.
One of the CT versions allowed for rapid fire and the other didn’t and that auto fire one was a beast. But the common point was a zero G weapon, no recoil, with rifle ranges.
Logical development because by then the laser rifle has been countered by reflec. So a specific use case for space combat. On starships of course the snub pistol will take care of business, so more of an outside hull/boarding party/asteroid weapon.
Last edited:
'Smokeless' vs gunpowder (now called 'black powder' to distinguish it from smokeless) was a huge advance in many ways. It make far less smoke. It fouled far less, and the fouling was easier to remove and less corrosive (though the primers were still corrosive until after WWII, and sometimes not even then). It had a higher energy density and, once some kinks in manufacture were worked out, was more stable and safer. It had a much more useful pressure curve.
Highly advanced black powder formulations had just made magainze-fed repeating rifles practical, barely, when smokeless came along and they went from bleeding edge to mass-produced general service, practically everywhere inside a decade. Smokeless made it so much easier.
But it's true that an old Trapdoor Remington or Martini-Henry had all the performance you needed, and more. The smokeless battle rifle rounds of WWI vintage (.303, .30-06, 7.92mm Mauser, 7.62x54mmR, etc.) all had superior ballistics to previous blackpowder rounds, while being lighter and recoiling less. The first intermediate rounds (in military terms) could've been blackpowder, but they'd had fouled up the semi-auto and full-auto rifles they were used in very fast. Later cartridges, such as 5.56x45mm NATO aren't really practical with blackpowder - their small bore size would foul very fast, they rely on modern high pressures, and so on.
But that's all evolutionary - the big jump was that initial step to smokeless. The other big jump was the one prior to that - to metallic cartridges, and that required the mass production of weapons that were all nearly identical, and of cartridge cases and bullets that were effectively identical.
And the problem with earlier versions (CT through to T4) is that they are old now, and the past 30 years has seen a huge improvement in optics and in the ability to match powder loads to (short) barrel lengths (that started back in the 60s, but mainly for civilian use in magnums, and thus it was about slow powders to get maximum use from heavy bullets in long barrels). Gun design rules, such as those in FF&S, should have a TL modifier to the ideal barrel length for a given bore and energy to reflect the latter.
Similar threads
