Re: (1501) Lasers and Recoil

 In message 1501 [email removed] (Mark F. Cook) writes:
 >
 >The previously included messages are gettting pretty deep, but here
 >goes:
 >
 >In message 1492, Brent L. Woods [email removed] writes:
 >>In message 1489([email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
 >>>
 >>>Brent L. Woods [email removed] writes:
 >>>
 >>>>      I don't think they do.  The effect of the two types of weapons
 >>>> (laser pistols versus laser carbines/rifles) are a lot closer
 >>>> together than the slug-thrower equivalents.  With lasers, the only
 >>>> real difference is the power.  With slug-throwers, pistols are much
 >>>> less acurate (due to the shorter barrel length and inferior sights)
 >>>> and have a much shorter range (same reasons, basically).
 >>>
 >>>The pistol is still handled totally differently from the longarm, due
 >>>to the different shape and weight.
 >>
 >>     I don't think I agree with that, in the case of lasers.
 >
 >Nope, Adrian's right.  More in a minute.

     After reading Adrian's last reply, I was going to send him some
private mail suggesting that we "agree to disagree."  However, the
(most recent) quoted material "gave me furiously to think."  ;-)

     I've reached the conclusion that we (Adrian and I) were both
"right."  More on that later...

 >>Sure, you hold a pistol differently than you do a longarm (unless
 >>you're John Wayne :-) ), but, other than that, there's no real
 >>difference.  Once you've been trained to use a laser (any type), I
 >>think you should be able to use any other type without a problem.
 >
 >This is where I disagree.  Sure, for slug-throwers, recoil is a
 >significant problem.  But the two factors which make aiming a pistol
 >radically different from aiming a longarm are a) lack of a brace (i.e.
 >stock), and b) noticably shorter distance between front and rear
 >sights.  Even if there is NO recoil whatsoever, these two factors will
 >require you to adopt totally different firing techniques for pistol
 >vs. rifle.  You could treat a .22 cal. rifle and pistol as being
 >comparable to firing a laser weapon, since they have virtually zero
 >recoil.

     I agree with this.  I shoot competition, so I have quite a bit of
experience with .22 rifles and pistols (caveat:  I don't fire "off the
shelf" weapons; I use match weapons, which are slightly different).

 >People who've fired .22 semi-auto pistols may disagree with this
 >statement, but 95% of the recoil that you feel with a small caliber
 >pistol is the bolt being thrown, and not the recoil of the slug
 >itself.

     Depends on the pistol.  My match pistol has no perceptible recoil,
but it's very massive, compared to other .22 automatics.

 >I maintain that unless an advanced sighting mechanism (which includes
 >some sort of automatic stabilization) is used, firing a laser pistol
 >will be as different from firing a laser rifle, as a slug-throwing
 >handgun would be from a rifle of the same caliber.

     Here's where my disagreement makes itself felt.  I just don't see
that much difference between using my rifles and pistol.  The rifles
are heavier, and touch my shoulder, but that's about it.  I'm strange,
though.  I don't use the sights.  I just hold the weapon until it feels
right, and then fire.  I'm a pretty good marksman, too, if I do say so
myself...  :-)

 >Personally, my feeling is that by the time laser weapons come into
 >wide use as individual defense weapons, they will include advanced
 >aiming devices (i.e. gyro-stablized scopes with electronically
 >enhanced imaging capablities).  Once this happens, then there WILL be
 >no different between aiming a pistol vs. a rifle.  IMPORTANT NOTE: if
 >you assume that this IS, in fact, the way lasers are rigged, then
 >Brent is right and Adrian is wrong.

     I do, in fact, make that assumption (no surprise, right?).
However, I suspect that I wouldn't use the neat little aiming gadgets
anyway, so your mileage may vary.  ;-)

 >Most of these observations are based on a lifetime of hunting (since
 >age 12), plus a stint in the U.S. Marines.  I've had the opportunity
 >to use most major types of civilian-available firearms, plus my fair
 >share of auto-fire weapons and other nasty explosive sundries whilst
 >in the service.

     Jarhead training, eh?  ;-)  ;-)  (Seriously, I have a lot of
respect for the Corps; the Navy taught me that, and one of my best
friends is a Marine.)  I've been using firearms of various kinds (both
civilian [at first] and military [later on]) since I was eight years
old (my Dad's a country boy).  I have some experience working as a
gunsmith, too.

     Anyway, that's where the problem lies; a point-and-fire
philosophy, on my part.  It doesn't help that I usually hit what I
shoot at, either, I suppose.  So, Adrian and I are both right.  We
just use different basic assumptions.

     I wonder...  Should we consider putting *both* styles of weapon
into our games?  It would make unskilled combat more interesting...
You could never quite be sure what you're picking up off that pirate
raider...


- --
     Brent

INTERNET:  [email removed]
[address removed]
PHONE:  [phone removed] (voice)