Forums of the Megaverse®

Rules-wise, what's the benefit to a Sniper Rifle instead of an Automatic Rifle? The damage numbers for the assault rifle are way better than for the Sniper Rifle. Is there a rule or rules that I've missed which makes a Sniper rifle much more useful? I get the benefits and difference from an RP standpoint, I'm just looking for a rules justification.

Glistam wrote:Rules-wise, what's the benefit to a Sniper Rifle instead of an Automatic Rifle? The damage numbers for the assault rifle are way better than for the Sniper Rifle. Is there a rule or rules that I've missed which makes a Sniper rifle much more useful? I get the benefits and difference from an RP standpoint, I'm just looking for a rules justification.

None of which I am aware, apart from some of them having a better range listed (I assume that you are talking about the numbers in the GMG. IF you aren't, would you mind mentioning what stats you are using so that I can try and give a better answer?).

Sniper rifles generally have these benefits over automatic weapons.

1) Typically longer range
2) Typically slightly higher damage per shot
3) Aimed shots must be single shots so the automatic weapon is typically less effective when making aimed shots or less accurate when firing bursts.
4) Called Shots must be single shots so the automatic weapon is either less effective when making a called shot or can't make a called shot at all.

Pretty much what Jeffar said.

Our games usually say you need a bolt action, or sniper modified rifle to make use of the Sniper skill. RAW says only weapons that can be made to fire single shot/blast benefit, but we also interpreted that as only bolt action rifles, or those built/modified for accuracy could use the skill. So an accurized M-14 would work, but an off the shelf semi automatic AR wouldn't. Again, not RAW, but how we play it.

Rule wise there is no difference between a bolt action 'sniper' rifle and a semiautomatic rifle.

Though, depending on which main rule book you use, them seni-autos can occasionally pump out a burst for you.

Palladium has chosen a very streamlined system for modern firearms combat which, while making it easier to play, does sacrifice elements of realism.

There are a number of ways to house rule it in however.

For example, giving true sniper rifles a bonus to strike of +2 or so on Aimed Shots. The less accurate but still better than usual Designated Marksman style weapons could see a +1.

You could also change rate of fire to more closely resemble what we see in Recon with a number of shots per action with a roll to hit or miss for each shot. Penalties for auto fire or bonuses for careful aiming could apply.

Just a couple of examples.

SpiritInterface wrote:Rule wise there is no difference between a bolt action 'sniper' rifle and a semiautomatic rifle.

Often you are correct there isn't.
This of course rankles my sniper more than a bit.

What I have done is start looking around for weapons that offer benifits. There are various rifles in various games that offer better range, or superior optics, or inate bonuses, or improved damage in exchange for a reduced RoF. By collecting a large stash of weapons she is able to pick and choose from her collection so as to have the right gun for the job.

And of course, this is before house rules or the like start to kick in.

A bolt action can't do a burst, a semi-automatic can. So a semi automatic "sniper" rifle like a Barrett M82R/M107, or Dragunov can fire bursts based on their description, a bolt action rifle like a Model 85 Parker Hale, or McMillian M87 can't. So a minor difference at least.

My games, both GMing or playing usually have other factors like bracing and recoil, but I think the RAW let you burst fire a Barrett from the shoulder....poor shoulder.

RockJock wrote:A bolt action can't do a burst, a semi-automatic can. So a semi automatic "sniper" rifle like a Barrett M82R/M107, or Dragunov can fire bursts based on their description, a bolt action rifle like a Model 85 Parker Hale, or McMillian M87 can't. So a minor difference at least.

My games, both GMing or playing usually have other factors like bracing and recoil, but I think the RAW let you burst fire a Barrett from the shoulder....poor shoulder.

I hate to be a rules lawyer (no, seriously), but only automatic weapons and weapons designed to fire 2 and 3 round bursts can fire bursts. Semi-automatics can't fire bursts. One pull of the trigger = one round. Long guns truly purposed as sniper rifles are NEVER automatic nor do they fire bursts. If they could fire a bust, even from a distance of a hundred yards (very, very close for a sniper rifle), the first round fired might be on target, but the subsequent one or two or three more would most definitely NOT be due to the recoil, however great or moderate it may be.

Truth be told, the most precise sniper rifles are bolt actions. The action of a semi-auto rifle automatically cycles subsequent to the firing of the round whereas the bolt action does not. In a semi-auto, the round is leaving the barrel close to the time the gasses that propel the round forward are rerouted and make their way back to cycle a piston or bolt, so the difference is negligible. When a sniper is trying to make a 2,000 yard shot (or more!), any unnecessary movement is undesirable. Those very small movements are magnified with distance. That said, there are some absolutely tack-driving semi-auto sniper rifles out there in the world, so don't get me wrong!

Jeffar probably answered with the most accurate and concise response (In my humble opinion):

Jeffar wrote:Sniper rifles generally have these benefits over automatic weapons.

1) Typically longer range
2) Typically slightly higher damage per shot
3) Aimed shots must be single shots so the automatic weapon is typically less effective when making aimed shots or less accurate when firing bursts.
4) Called Shots must be single shots so the automatic weapon is either less effective when making a called shot or can't make a called shot at all.

Oh, ya... I forgot... The calibers that sniper rifles shoot will always deal greater damage than a typical assault rifle, unless you're talking about a 7.62x51, which is creeping up to the weight of rounds that sniper rifles fire. You're typical M4 (.223/5.56x45) or AK-47 (7.62x39) on the battle field fires smaller rounds than sniper rifles. Sniper rifles are used from from greater distances, so they need to fire rounds that are larger and heavier that can stabalize and endure those long distances. A meager 62 grain 5.56 round simply can't muster up the inertia it needs to travel the distances a much heavier 250 grain .338 LapuaMagnum round can. Think of it this way... The greater distance requires a heavier bullet and stronger load, which when you put those together, makes for way more damage!

The sad thing is that the HU2 book (pg. 340) is so outdated or vague that it doesn't distinguish a 7.62x39 from a 7.62x51 round.... two VERY different rounds, nor does it even list rounds developed as far back as the 1980s like the .338 Lapua Magnum, which is an extremely popular military round used in sniper rifles. It also fails to list the .40 S&W round, developed in 1990 for law enforcement, the 6.8x43 rifle cartridge designed in the early 2000's, or the 6.5 Grendel or 6.5 Creedmoor (both designed in the 2000s). That makes for a wonderful argument for the Hardware Unlimited book I've heard so much buzz about.....

Jack Burton wrote:I hate to be a rules lawyer (no, seriously), but only automatic weapons and weapons designed to fire 2 and 3 round bursts can fire bursts. Semi-automatics can't fire bursts. One pull of the trigger = one round.

I don't like to be a rules lawyer either, but Page 75 of Heroes Unlimited 2nd ed. states that semi-automatic weapons and double-action revolvers can fire bursts, but require an extra melee action to squeeze off a long burst (counts as two attacks), or to empty the clip in a full melee burst (counts as three attacks).

filo_clarke wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:I hate to be a rules lawyer (no, seriously), but only automatic weapons and weapons designed to fire 2 and 3 round bursts can fire bursts. Semi-automatics can't fire bursts. One pull of the trigger = one round.

I don't like to be a rules lawyer either, but Page 75 of Heroes Unlimited 2nd ed. states that semi-automatic weapons and double-action revolvers can fire bursts, but require an extra melee action to squeeze off a long burst (counts as two attacks), or to empty the clip in a full melee burst (counts as three attacks).

I stand corrected. I disagree in principal, though. I had to see that one to believe it. I wish the rules would refer to the firing of a long succession of semi-automatic fire as a "volley" or something... just not the term "burst", which is a real life thing. I understand what the book says, and even the book acknowledges that one trigger pull = one round, but the rules are the rules. Thanks, filo.

Jack Burton, what you're running up against is 'Real world application' vs "Palladium lack of understanding of modern firearms"

By and large Palladium's firearms knowledge comes from 70s and 80s Chuck Norris movies and the like (And their modern tech in the books isn't much past that.) That's not said as a cut. They just don't have the point of reference or knowledge past that, and have done very little to modernize their knowledge.

The rules as jeffar has pointed out above are very bare bones on such things. (And is seriously hobbled by the lack of real understanding of concept out side of a "Delta force" movie from the early 80s.

So if one is going to "Rules lawyer" One has to use the "RULES" Not the real world. The two are very different.

In Palladium a "Burst" s a 'way' of shooting, more than one simple pull of the trigger and a number of bullets coming out. What you're describing is a 'pulse' from laser rifles from rifts.

As a side note. You.. "Can" "Burst" Shoot a Barret from the shoulder. There's plenty of Youtube videos showing it being done. It's pretty stupid and all around dangerous but it can be done. (In this case the 'burst' is just yanking the trigger and depleting the entire magazine rapid fire, it's not one trigger pull and multiple shots. )

Also as side note number two. You CAN Fire bursts from simi automatic weapons. There are things such as 'Bump stocks" which confer burst ability on simi-automatic weapons.

I.E. One pull of the trigger and automatic fire.

These are not 'covered' by Palladium rules and need house rulings to cover.

Jack,

I don't disagree with you on the real world, I was just pulling from the HU GMG for my example. That's why I made the comment about firing a .50 cal barrett from the shoulder in a burst.

My intent was to list the RAW that separate bolt and semi auto sniper rifles, not to back up their logic lol.

Earlier I said how we actually play. Basically, to be a sniper rifle in our games it needs to be a bolt action, or a accurized rifle like a SVD, or some of the M-14 based rifles like the M-21 or M-25. Plus what Jaffar had said earlier. Basically you go for a sniper rifle because of called shots and range.

RockJock wrote:Jack,

I don't disagree with you on the real world, I was just pulling from the HU GMG for my example. That's why I made the comment about firing a .50 cal barrett from the shoulder in a burst.

My intent was to list the RAW that separate bolt and semi auto sniper rifles, not to back up their logic lol.

Earlier I said how we actually play. Basically, to be a sniper rifle in our games it needs to be a bolt action, or a accurized rifle like a SVD, or some of the M-14 based rifles like the M-21 or M-25. Plus what Jaffar had said earlier. Basically you go for a sniper rifle because of called shots and range.

Oh, ya. I figured that. The rationale behind the semi-automatic "burst" surprised me, though. I've always thought the Palladium system was pretty good when it came to modern weapons, so that threw me for a loop. I kick myself for making that mistake, however. Back in the late 80's, my HU Revised Ed. character was a Hardware guy, so I'm sure he fired many "bursts" back in the day that I completely forgot about!

In regards to Bump Stocks, I'd say they allow for full auto fire, but inflict a penalty to strike as you can't properly stabilize the weapon.

Jefffar wrote:In regards to Bump Stocks, I'd say they allow for full auto fire, but inflict a penalty to strike as you can't properly stabilize the weapon.

Oh you can. You stabilize with your off hand. They're no harder to shoot than any full auto rifle.

One thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned, or if they did I missed it, is surprise and concealment. Snipers always go first and unless someone in the group has a power like Sixth Sense they will get one free action before the round even begins. And with concealment it could be 3 or 4 shots before the bad guys even know where they are being fired on from.

Add to this if you are concealed you don't have spend attacks dodge / avoiding enemy attacks.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Jefffar wrote:In regards to Bump Stocks, I'd say they allow for full auto fire, but inflict a penalty to strike as you can't properly stabilize the weapon.

Oh you can. You stabilize with your off hand. They're no harder to shoot than any full auto rifle.

I almost never shoot guns, maybe once every 10 years or so, but I was surprised how stable the bump stock is. At most you might say a -1 to strike but I would not even do that.

Warshield73 wrote:One thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned, or if they did I missed it, is surprise and concealment. Snipers always go first and unless someone in the group has a power like Sixth Sense they will get one free action before the round even begins. And with concealment it could be 3 or 4 shots before the bad guys even know where they are being fired on from.

Add to this if you are concealed you don't have spend attacks dodge / avoiding enemy attacks.

To expand on this.
A sniper shot is generally a surprise attack.

As such the sniper can take all the time in the world to line up a perfect aimed/called shot and use any other skills/gear to make the perfect shot...
...a shot that as a surpise attack allows for no defense.
No dodge, no parry.
None.
That means that they just need to roll an 8+ and they get to hit.
And adding in things like damage multiplyiers from hit locations, attack from behind, critical hit, special rounds, special skills, or the like and you can quickly see why they are of great value.. in their particular field of specialty.

And additionally until you know where your being shot FROM they are STILL going to be basically surprise atttack/attack from the rear.
You might know your being shot at.. but if you have no clue where the bullets are coming from you can't take proper evasive action.

My curent PC is a sniper. She is still nasty in a stand up fight sure... but let her do her thing and she can easily pull of a text book version of a comic book assasination. Shoot someone from a mile away, one shot, to the head. Instant death. And be long gone before anyone is able to even figure out what happened let alone even think about stopping her.
Its not all that usefull in a stand up super slug fest granted. But thats not always what you need either.

And if you can get access to skills and stuff from other game lines... look out.

As a Soldier with tons of automatic weapon experience I can assure you the following...

Bump stocks do not make a semi-auto (what the British more accurately and descriptively call self loading) into a full auto. Bump stocks simply make it easier to pull the trigger faster. That's it, nothing more. They do not change the function of the weapon or the trigger. Basically instead of holding the gun still and moving the trigger you hold your finger still and move the gun. That's it.

A machine gun or full auto is when you pull and hold the trigger and the gun fires more than one round. If it fires a specific pre-determined number of rounds that is an automatic "burst", if it continues to fire as long as the trigger is held until it runs out of ammo, that is true full auto.

tsh77769

tsh77769 wrote:As a Soldier with tons of automatic weapon experience I can assure you the following...

Bump stocks do not make a semi-auto (what the British more accurately and descriptively call self loading) into a full auto. Bump stocks simply make it easier to pull the trigger faster. That's it, nothing more. They do not change the function of the weapon or the trigger. Basically instead of holding the gun still and moving the trigger you hold your finger still and move the gun. That's it.

A machine gun or full auto is when you pull and hold the trigger and the gun fires more than one round. If it fires a specific pre-determined number of rounds that is an automatic "burst", if it continues to fire as long as the trigger is held until it runs out of ammo, that is true full auto.

tsh77769

As civilian with limited firearms experience I will simply accept that everything you said here is about the mechanics is accurate and it seems to line up with what I have seems (I will disagree with you on the British reference of "self loading" as automatic seems far more accurate to the effect of the weapon). However, this is a distinction without a difference.

First, with the bump stock you are not "squeezing" anything. The trigger slams against your finger over and over at a rate so fast that the pressure feels constant. Your finger on the guide never moves and in fact those of us with limited experience had trouble stopping the fire, continuing to fire was easy making it very different from trying to rapid fire a true semi-auto and since your hand is not moving at all maintaining accuracy is easier. While you are absolutely correct that the addition of a bump stock does not change the mechanics of the rifle the effect is that of a fully automatic rifle and since we are trying to come up with rules for an RPG the effect is really all that counts.

Warshield73 wrote:

tsh77769 wrote:As a Soldier with tons of automatic weapon experience I can assure you the following...

Bump stocks do not make a semi-auto (what the British more accurately and descriptively call self loading) into a full auto. Bump stocks simply make it easier to pull the trigger faster. That's it, nothing more. They do not change the function of the weapon or the trigger. Basically instead of holding the gun still and moving the trigger you hold your finger still and move the gun. That's it.

A machine gun or full auto is when you pull and hold the trigger and the gun fires more than one round. If it fires a specific pre-determined number of rounds that is an automatic "burst", if it continues to fire as long as the trigger is held until it runs out of ammo, that is true full auto.

tsh77769

As civilian with limited firearms experience I will simply accept that everything you said here is about the mechanics is accurate and it seems to line up with what I have seems (I will disagree with you on the British reference of "self loading" as automatic seems far more accurate to the effect of the weapon). However, this is a distinction without a difference.

First, with the bump stock you are not "squeezing" anything. The trigger slams against your finger over and over at a rate so fast that the pressure feels constant. Your finger on the guide never moves and in fact those of us with limited experience had trouble stopping the fire, continuing to fire was easy making it very different from trying to rapid fire a true semi-auto and since your hand is not moving at all maintaining accuracy is easier. While you are absolutely correct that the addition of a bump stock does not change the mechanics of the rifle the effect is that of a fully automatic rifle and since we are trying to come up with rules for an RPG the effect is really all that counts.

It seems like you want to argue for the sake of arguing.

One reason why the British description of self loading is more accurate and descriptive is because it avoids confusion between semi auto, full auto, and the generic or mis applied "auto" or "automatic". Another reason is because it describes what the energy is used for, to load another round without having to do it manually.

In regards to the first part of your description of bump firing, you seem to be both trying to correct yet strangely also parroting what I already said. As for the second part, no, it is absolutely not more accurate and that is frankly quite silly.

One thing you are correct about is that for the purposes of the game it matters very little. How much it may or may not matter depends on how much you care about reality or facts or not. A couple things that could matter would include bump stocks being much less accurate due to much more weapon movement, and much less reliable due to the possibility of hammer follow as well as robbing the mechanism of some energy from relative motion of its parts in relationship to one another (this is what causes limp wristing malfunctions in pistols for example). Additionally they are comparatively fragile and subject to breakage with even moderate field conditions.

I despise and would never use a bump fire stock. They are stupid little recreational toys that only help convert money into noise and cause further confusion among the uninformed.

tsh77769

tsh77769 wrote:It seems like you want to argue for the sake of arguing.

One reason why the British description of self loading is more accurate and descriptive is because it avoids confusion between semi auto, full auto, and the generic or mis applied "auto" or "automatic". Another reason is because it describes what the energy is used for, to load another round without having to do it manually.

First, I would very much like you to not make this personal by characterizing my statements. If you don't like them, use facts not insults.

Second "self loading" does describe what the energy is used for but then the bullet comes out. Over and over, also it doesn't avoid confusion because the energy from firing a semi-auto is also used to load another round. Also, if you are trying to avoid confusion in word choice English is not the language for it. The list of identical words that mean the exact same thing seems to be half the dictionary including the word right, which as any person who has everyone given directions to the driver will tell you is way more confusing then fully automatic.

Again I am sure for people who know a lot about guns this may be mechanically accurate but it does not describe the effect that everyone sees. Again this is personal preference so I don't feel like belaboring the point and since these are the terms used by our own armed forces and law enforcement I feel like I'm on solid ground.

tsh77769 wrote:In regards to the first part of your description of bump firing, you seem to be both trying to correct yet strangely also parroting what I already said. As for the second part, no, it is absolutely not more accurate and that is frankly quite silly.

I am not sure what you are what you are talking about "parroting". I was describing my personal experience, nothing more. When I had a chance to see a demonstration of these in person I went because I didn't want to simply oppose these out of hand I wanted to see them.

As for the accuracy I was just giving my personal experience and offering my opinion on how this would work in game. I was very specific in saying "if you are trying to rapid fire a semi auto". If you are trying to pull the trigger as fast as you can over and over you loose accuracy. If you fire a bump stock you will loose accuracy just like any fully automatic weapon. A semi automatic where you are aiming and breathing between shots is of course going to be far more accurate.

What I have seen from the in person demonstration, online (this is a great video on the topic), and from law enforcement is that the difference between rate of fire and accuracy between a fully automatic AR-15 and a semi-auto AR-15 with a bump stock is minimal. Not to put to fine a point on it but there are 422 people from the Las Vegas shooting that will tell you it is accurate enough and 59 who no longer can.

tsh77769 wrote:One thing you are correct about is that for the purposes of the game it matters very little. How much it may or may not matter depends on how much you care about reality or facts or not. A couple things that could matter would include bump stocks being much less accurate due to much more weapon movement, and much less reliable due to the possibility of hammer follow as well as robbing the mechanism of some energy from relative motion of its parts in relationship to one another (this is what causes limp wristing malfunctions in pistols for example). Additionally they are comparatively fragile and subject to breakage with even moderate field conditions.

Again with the insults, we are trying ascertain facts so that we can create bonuses and penalties that mimic reality as much as possible. What you said here about reliability is actually very good but I don't know where your getting it from. Everything I have seen online and in law enforcement bulletins suggest that most bump stocks are very reliable and no more prone to jamming or breakdowns then true fully automatic weapons but if you have a suggestion for realistic penalties that would be great.

tsh77769 wrote:I despise and would never use a bump fire stock. They are stupid little recreational toys that only help convert money into noise and cause further confusion among the uninformed.

tsh77769

This part is true. Firing a few practice bursts and then emptying a 40 round magazine cost me more money then I care to admit.

Ultimately I return to my original premise, everything you have said is a distinction without a difference. Most people I was at the range with could not tell wether the gun being fired was fully automatic or using a bump stock and there was not a person in Las Vegas (not military, law enforcement, or civilian) who did not think they were under attack by fully automatic weapons.

In terms of game stats I still think that -1 penalty over an actual automatic is good. In fact I am running a Heroes game at Owl Con tonight at that is what I'm using for the weapons. But if what tsh said is accurate there may need to be a penalty for continued use or for long duration combat.

I would just like to point out that as far as the game is concerned a weapon is an automatic weapon if it can fire a burst or a spray. As a wonderful line from a different game book put it "This is a game, not a doctoral thesis".
If a bump stock allows the firing of a burst or spray then it is game wise automatic.
How do we know if it does? Can it fire enough bullets in the needed time to make one?
The answer seems to be "yes, yes it can". Basically it is effectively creating an automatic weapon, just one that is fired in a non-standard manner.

Put another way, if a rifle was sold with a bump stock integrated into it as a component part of the weapon does anyone here think that it would not come under the classification of 'automatic weapon'. After all, it is designed to fire multiple shots with one trigger pull. The remaining 'pulls' are simply an automatic operation of the device itself and take no action on the part of the shooter.

My take is 'give the weapon it's bursts and sprays' and move on. Maybe give it a -1 to strike or something. Or not, its the GMs call.
I would say that it is likely to wear out the rifle faster as the weapon is cycling much faster than intended and this can put wear and pressure on parts that were not intended for it. Maybe the result is that a n1 on a roll results in the weapon breaking and needing to be repaired I dunno.

"Put another way, if a rifle was sold with a bump stock integrated into it as a component part of the weapon does anyone here think that it would not come under the classification of 'automatic weapon'. After all, it is designed to fire multiple shots with one trigger pull. The remaining 'pulls' are simply an automatic operation of the device itself and take no action on the part of the shooter."

That is not correct. See above. You must continuously exert forward pressure on the weapon for bumpfire to work. Other problems with your assumptions exists as well. See above.

"My take is 'give the weapon it's bursts and sprays' and move on. Maybe give it a -1 to strike or something. Or not, its the GMs call. I would say that it is likely to wear out the rifle faster as the weapon is cycling much faster than intended and this can put wear and pressure on parts that were not intended for it. Maybe the result is that a n1 on a roll results in the weapon breaking and needing to be repaired I dunno."

Previously addressed, see above.

tsh77769 wrote:

eliakon wrote:"Put another way, if a rifle was sold with a bump stock integrated into it as a component part of the weapon does anyone here think that it would not come under the classification of 'automatic weapon'. After all, it is designed to fire multiple shots with one trigger pull. The remaining 'pulls' are simply an automatic operation of the device itself and take no action on the part of the shooter."

That is not correct. See above. You must continuously exert forward pressure on the weapon for bumpfire to work. Other problems with your assumptions exists as well. See above.

Which is still basically irrelevant.
That would be like trying to claim that a machinegun isn't really a machinegun because you have to continuously hold the trigger down...
As has been repeatedly pointed out the rifle is held, the trigger is pulled by the shooter one time, and the system causes the trigger to be moved against the unmoving finger for the remainder of the shots.

tsh77769 wrote:

eliakon wrote:My take is 'give the weapon it's bursts and sprays' and move on. Maybe give it a -1 to strike or something. Or not, its the GMs call.
I would say that it is likely to wear out the rifle faster as the weapon is cycling much faster than intended and this can put wear and pressure on parts that were not intended for it. Maybe the result is that a n1 on a roll results in the weapon breaking and needing to be repaired I dunno."

Previously addressed, see above.

Not really.
I know you suggested that there may, or may not, be wear and tear on the rifle itself. With no real explanation of what, why, or any possible effects. And considering that there are no canon rules on wear and tear on weapons anyway simply saying that it will wear faster doesn't do anything... you might as well say it will fnord faster or is more likely to talk to you... hence why I suggested an actual mechanical issue. Aka the rifle is cycling to fast for its build and on a n1 the rifle jams, or a spring breaks, or the like.

As for the strike penalty... again the entire premise here is that there are two camps here. One says there is no penalty at all, the other that the rifle is nearly unamiable.
I am right now leaning toward the side of those who have stated that they have used these devices previously and that in their experience it was not much harder to aim than a standard rifle.
I would note that what Palladium calls a normal shot would be considered a snap shot in the real world. After all they are not aimed in any way... which means that comparisons between the accuracy of a bump-firing rifle and a regular rifle need to be using the same sort of shots. If you take a second or three to aim your rifle then of course your going to be more accurate... your getting that 'aimed shot' bonus after all!
I myself have not used one, so I can not give a personal comparison to regular rifles or to light machineguns or well... any thing. That is why I am relying on those who have used them already to tell me what their experience with them has been.

Apparently, facts and and logic are unable to overcome your willful ignorance. If you would like to you can try to read my responses again, go S L O W E R for the sake of comprehension if it helps. BTW, you claim "I know you suggested that there may, or may not, be wear and tear on the rifle itself. With no real explanation of what, why, or any possible effects...", NO, I did NOT talk about wear and tear, nor did I suggest, nor was I ambivalent or vague. I was very specific about the reliability issues. If ignorance is bliss, continue on in your abundant happiness.

OH HOW I HATE, DETEST, AND DESPISE BUMPSTOCKS!! They contribute GREATLY to confusion, especially for those who are not well familiar with firearms and their operating principles and legal definitions.