[Zilfer]

^small amount of firing weapons myself wouldn't say that it's too hard. Take into account I've only fired, BB's, .22, .44's, different gauge shotguns. It hasn't been that hard to hit a target. I don't know about long distance in a fire fight under stressful conditions but eh. Hope i never find out

[foolofsound]

Maybe we'll have to chalk it up to my backwoods upbringing, but no - lining up a shot on an immobile target within effective range is damn near the level of difficulty I would declare "child's play". Heck, anecdotally speaking it was genuinely child's play when I first fire a shotgun at age 8 and hit my target (a spent shotgun shell 15 yards away) despite falling on my rear from not holding the shotgun quite right and also the first time I fired a revolver at some soda cans about 15 yards away and only missed on the first shot.

I'm not talking about military level practice, not even dedicated training, but guns do take some experience to fire accurately, even at stationary targets within effective range. If you are able to just pick up a gun, with no prior experience, and shoot with accuracy without at least a couple practice shots, you have very impressive eye-hand coordination. If you can hit a moving target from the get-go? You're probably a prodigy.

As for "use a different technique entirely" I have to completely disagree. You can, and should, be creating a solid eye-line aim no matter the type of firearm you are using - what's different is getting used to using a scope rather than using the sights built into the top of the weapon. The fact that a lot of people choose to shoot from the hip is just a lot of people choosing to completely ruin their own accuracy for no reason... just like a lot of real world thugs and thug wannabes started copying film and tv by holding their pistol sideways.

Sight vs Scope aiming isn't too different, in my experience. If you can master one, it isn't too hard to master the other. Spending the time to line up shot with a shotgun using the same technique as a rifle is counterproductive, particularly when hunting a moving target (like a dove or a rabbit). More important when firing a shotgun is the ability to quickly (not necessarily highly accurately) lead your target, a very different technique than an accurate shot at immobile or semi-mobile target (like a deer). Accuracy shooting with a rifle is very different than attempting to fire a shotgun or automatic weapon as they were intended to be used.

Attempting to fire a burst or automatic weapon is an entirely different experience. Learning to control recoil using small, controllable bursts takes time. Learning to, again, line up a shot quickly, instead of highly accurately, while still being able to hit your target takes time.

This method of quickly drawing a bead while leading your target is what I am referring to as "hipshooting". You simply don't have the ability to carefully line up a shot on a moving target. I can only imagine that this gets worse when you are moving as well.

If I had to split gun skills into categories, I would split them along the lines of Accuracte (Any weapon firing in Single/Semi-Auto mode, except shotguns and launchers), Rapid (Any weapon firing in Burst/Auto mode, plus shotguns), and Launcher (Launchers and related weapons)

small amount of firing weapons myself wouldn't say that it's too hard

Every tried to shoot a moving target, or try to aim under time constraints (deer might hear you and run)? When you have all the time in the world to aim at a target that moving, it's not too hard. Under pressure? Let's just say that there is a reason that average police accuracy hovers around 35%.

[Zilfer]

Yeah don't doubt it's harder to hit a moving target. Though really, I've shot a shotgun maybe 3 times (not 3 bullets but gone out) and we went and shot a box of birdies my step dad had bought. I missed maybe first 2 shots before I started hitting them. The harder part is if you threw 2 at the same time trying to get them both. Time constraint is a little bit more when you have to shoot two before they land. XD

I can see what you mean by shotgun and rifle beind different. I've yet to come close to shooting a deer with my bow, but I did have a bunny run onto the trail sniffing around when I was younger and step dad had me take a shot at it, and I nailed it with a toy bow with no sights as it was 'slowly' moving searching around the trail for something.

You definately need practice I'll give you that, but I don't think you need hours upon hours of practice. Though I can't tell you I've shot a pistol at a target down long range, haven't had much experience but, I'm willing to bet pistol shooting is very hard beyond 15-20 yards. Such a small barrel and just the slightest movement sending the bullet way off path. xD

[Noble Drake]

I'm not talking about military level practice, not even dedicated training, but guns do take some experience to fire accurately, even at stationary targets within effective range. If you are able to just pick up a gun, with no prior experience, and shoot with accuracy without at least a couple practice shots, you have very impressive eye-hand coordination. If you can hit a moving target from the get-go? You're probably a prodigy.

I really wouldn't consider myself a prodigy by any means... I've seen plenty of folks, when taken out to a shooting range by someone that is practice in firearms, start hitting targets regularly on their first load of ammo - including when the target in question was a golf ball sent flying over a rock quarry and their weapon was an SKS modified (illegally) to be an automatic weapon.

I think you and I are simply working on different assumptions of what "accurately" means. I am just using to mean hitting your intended target more often than you miss it to a significant enough degree that it no longer seems like "luck" is the explanation.

Let's just say that there is a reason that average police accuracy hovers around 35%.

That is true. All of the cops I've ever talked to about it have said that reason is because they do not want to shoot people, no matter how much they practice shooting or how necessary it is for their job and survival.

[foolofsound]

I really wouldn't consider myself a prodigy by any means... I've seen plenty of folks, when taken out to a shooting range by someone that is practice in firearms, start hitting targets regularly on their first load of ammo - including when the target in question was a golf ball sent flying over a rock quarry and their weapon was an SKS modified (illegally) to be an automatic weapon.

Having not been there, I can't say that this isn't true, but suffice to say, based on my experience learning to shoot, and my experiences with my younger cousins doing the same, I am highly skeptical of your claim.

That is true. All of the cops I've ever talked to about it have said that reason is because they do not want to shoot people, no matter how much they practice shooting or how necessary it is for their job and survival.

Police don't give warning shots. It's low because it's difficult to hit a moving target while you are moving yourself, moreso while adrenaline and stress are high. Battlefield accuracy is much the same (it's actually far lower, but we're not accounting for suppressive fire) for the same reasons.

[JustADude]

That is true. All of the cops I've ever talked to about it have said that reason is because they do not want to shoot people, no matter how much they practice shooting or how necessary it is for their job and survival.

Police don't give warning shots. It's low because it's difficult to hit a moving target while you are moving yourself, moreso while adrenaline and stress are high. Battlefield accuracy is much the same (it's actually far lower, but we're not accounting for suppressive fire) for the same reasons.

That's one game-vs-reality difference I'm going to chalk up to the advances in aiming technology and the fact that all the "serious" combatants have superhuman levels of skill.

[Unahim]

Imo, this discussion completely misses the point. You're all talking about hitting a target, how it isn't hard, and how everyone should be able to do it without training.

The game agrees!

Take an average person with 3 agility, give him a pistol while he doesn't have any skill in it. He rolls 2 dice, making him score 1 hit 66% of the time. Now the opponent rolls dodge, but hey, you're talking about shooting cans and targets and stuff: they have 0 dice to dodge! Result: Mundanes have an average (between all of them) of 66% accuracy on the shooting ranges right off the bat.

With a minimum of training, he gets 1 skill, 4 dice, and thus can reliably hit targets.

The problem in Shadowrun is people dodging and moving around erratically. Even clay pidgeons shot out into the sky move in a predictable trajectory, so it isn't really comparable. Perhaps the effects of dodging in SR are exaggerated, true, but that's a different discussion entirely.

[Noble Drake]

Imo, this discussion completely misses the point. You're all talking about hitting a target, how it isn't hard, and how everyone should be able to do it without training.

The game agrees!

Take an average person with 3 agility, give him a pistol while he doesn't have any skill in it. He rolls 2 dice, making him score 1 hit 66% of the time. Now the opponent rolls dodge, but hey, you're talking about shooting cans and targets and stuff: they have 0 dice to dodge! Result: Mundanes have an average (between all of them) of 66% accuracy on the shooting ranges right off the bat.

That comparison, and the SR4A rules, are ignoring the difference between hitting a man-sized target and hitting something considerably smaller - such as a can or a 12" square target bought at a sporting goods store.

That should, in theory at least, reduce the die pool by some amount - 1 die being a 33% chance and not all that reliable, if the penalty is 2 or more dice we just ran into Long Shot territory... and that really throws off parity with reality since untrained shooters can certainly hit a target more than twice in one day.

[emsquared]

So, it seems like the OP had his question answered, I won't feel too bad about continuing the off-topicedness....

You can, and should, be creating a solid eye-line aim no matter the type of firearm you are using - what's different is getting used to using a scope rather than using the sights built into the top of the weapon.

As a hunter since the age of 10 or so, this was roughly my thoughts when I read where this thread was going.

IMHO, pistols (anything where energy transfer is through hands and arms) and longarms (anything where the energy is transferred into your shoulder) are easily justifiable as two different skills, they simply relate differently to your body. Weapon weight distribution (across itself and in your grip), energy transfer after trigger pull and therefore footing/balance techniques and aiming techniques are all distinct and separate between those two types of firearms - completely different skills (although same principles). A person can easily be good with one and not the other.

The next level of skill differences come down to when you're using  no aiming assistance at all ("fire from the hip"), an iron sight, or a scope. A person can be good with an iron sight (shooting a shotgun), but then you put him infront of a scoped rifle (or shotgun if you're hunting with slugs) and it changes many subtle techniques (breathing, altered balance, fine muscle control), then you make anyone shoot from the hip and it's something totally different, more directly related to visceral hand-eye coordination and an intuitive grasp of the geometry and physics of shooting. The only time I've seen someone who was good with shotguns, not be good with rifles, it was because they were shooting through a scope and lacked the fine muscle control techniques that make scopes useful.

But then where would a  "red dot" aiming reticle fall? It's a direct and prefect cross between the iron sight and scoped skill sets and benefits... personally I feel it's closer to iron sight.

Again, IMHO, gunnery would have a place as a different skill set for large-caliber full-auto fire and things such as vehicle and gyro mounts (really though, probably the same as "shoot from the hip"), and then one for launcher (grenade, missle, etc.) as the projectile physics are different.

[Noble Drake]

IMHO, pistols (anything where energy transfer is through hands and arms) and longarms (anything where the energy is transferred into your shoulder) are easily justifiable as two different skills, they simply relate differently to your body.

What are your thoughts on pistols (machine or otherwise) and SMGs with folding, detachable, or extending stocks?

Not that I am trying to pick apart your thoughts or anything, I'm just curious if you feel that would constitute a significant enough change in the weapon to change it from using of the above definitions of one skill to the other.

[emsquared]

IMHO, pistols (anything where energy transfer is through hands and arms) and longarms (anything where the energy is transferred into your shoulder) are easily justifiable as two different skills, they simply relate differently to your body.

What are your thoughts on pistols (machine or otherwise) and SMGs with folding, detachable, or extending stocks?

Not that I am trying to pick apart your thoughts or anything, I'm just curious if you feel that would constitute a significant enough change in the weapon to change it from using of the above definitions of one skill to the other.

Not at all, I actually meant to address this because my Pornomancer has a Ruger Thunderbolt with folding stock. In reality, I'd say the skill-set changes from pistol to longarm, depending on whether you're using a stock (so a "pistol grip" shotgun with no stock, but say a fore-grip, would be a pistol skill roll ), because the only real difference between the two shooting techniques is how energy distribution is handled. So in truth you could have pistol - SA, pistol - BF, pistol - FA, longarm - SA, longarm - BF, and longarm - FA, all as distinct skillsets, because the volume of energy being dealt with changes the skillset used too.  But for the sake of not adding ridiculous levels of complication, well, do it like SR does and make arbitrary skill groupings >.<

[Unahim]

That comparison, and the SR4A rules, are ignoring the difference between hitting a man-sized target and hitting something considerably smaller - such as a can or a 12" square target bought at a sporting goods store.

That should, in theory at least, reduce the die pool by some amount - 1 die being a 33% chance and not all that reliable, if the penalty is 2 or more dice we just ran into Long Shot territory... and that really throws off parity with reality since untrained shooters can certainly hit a target more than twice in one day.

Combat rules have always been an abstraction. It's close enough.

We also haven't taken in account the Aim action yet. I'm AFB and can't really remember if someone without skill in pistols could use Aim once, but if they can't just houserule it so that the minimum consecutive Aims someone can take is 1, and then we're all set.

Not the huge discrepancy with suspension of disbelief some are making it out to be, in any case.

[WellsIDidIt]

We also haven't taken in account the Aim action yet. I'm AFB and can't really remember if someone without skill in pistols could use Aim once, but if they can't just houserule it so that the minimum consecutive Aims someone can take is 1, and then we're all set.

That's always been one of my biggest beefs with RAW is that you have to have a skill of 2 to be able to Take Aim (number of times is equal to half skill round down). Combined with using a scope technically being a Take Aim action, you can't scope someone without a skill of 2 by the RAW, even though it's far easier than aiming using the rifle sights.

[Mäx]

Imo, this discussion completely misses the point. You're all talking about hitting a target, how it isn't hard, and how everyone should be able to do it without training.

The game agrees!

Take an average person with 3 agility, give him a pistol while he doesn't have any skill in it. He rolls 2 dice, making him score 1 hit 66% of the time. Now the opponent rolls dodge, but hey, you're talking about shooting cans and targets and stuff: they have 0 dice to dodge! Result: Mundanes have an average (between all of them) of 66% accuracy on the shooting ranges right off the bat.

That comparison, and the SR4A rules, are ignoring the difference between hitting a man-sized target and hitting something considerably smaller - such as a can or a 12" square target bought at a sporting goods store.

Only if you don't use Arsenal:
"Micro Target
Micro-sized targets such as insects and micro-drones are incredibly
diffi cult to hit, especially at range. Apply a –6 dice pool
modifi er. At certain ranges, these targets may not even be visible
without magnifi cation (meaning the Target Hidden modifi er p. 141,
SR4, would apply as well).
Mini Target
Mini targets include minidrones, very large insects, small rodents,
and similar small animals. Apply a –4 dice pool modifi er.
Small Target
Small targets include small drones, cats, small dogs, babies and
toddlers, and similar small creatures. Apply a –2 dice pool modifier."