Ship's Locker: Out of the Closet

Weapon: Snub Military Assault Carbine Five
Type: Handgun

Component ————— Cost - Weight - Other Factors
Receiver Type: Handgun - Cr175 - 0.8kg - Quickdraw 4
Ammunition Type: Low Recoil Special Purpose — Base Damage: 3D-3
Ammunition Cost: Cr200 per 100 rounds
Base Range: 40m
Base Ammunition Capacity: 10 rounds
Base Capacity Variation -20%
Signature: Physical (normal)
Inaccurate -2
Penetration -1

Mechanism: Burst Capable —————— +10% — none — Automatic 2
High Capacity: +50% ———————— +50% — +25% — Ammunition Capacity +50%
Modified Ammunition Capacity: +50% — +50% — +25% — Ammunition Capacity +50%
Receiver Totals ———— Cr433.125 - 1.25kg
Barrel: Assault ———— Cr86.625 - 0.375kg - Range -50%, Quickdraw +2
Stock: Stockless ——— Cr0 - 0.0kg — Quickdraw +2, Inaccurate (25m) -2
Totals ——————— Cr519.75 - 1.625kg
Association with the MAC Ten or Eleven indicates how I think this variant will look like.

I doubt at that muzzle velocity you could have a rate of fire of a thousand rounds per minute.

Twenty metres effective range and you could add a silencer and a laser pointer; and an extended magazine.

Checking out the Shipmate, I note that it's also rugged (20/10) vacuumed (20/-), and increased rate of fire plus two (25/10).

Incidentally, since base ammunition capacity is minus twenty percent, that's a modified eight, so ammunition capacity actually would be nine point six for the handgun variant, not the fourteen as printed, and why the capacity was increased to twenty for the assault weapon and carbine versions.
Twenty percent increase would, at ten rounds, be twelve, not fourteen rounds.

Carbine barrel would modify range to thirty six metres, not forty five.

Long barrel would be forty four metres, very long fifty metres.

For long distance, beyond twenty five metres, you might as well use rocket guns, rather than going for a single weapon type.
Weapon: Snub Assault Weapon
Type: Assault Weapon

Component ————— Cost - Weight - Other Factors
Receiver Type: Assault Weapon - Cr300 - 2.0kg - Quickdraw 2
Ammunition Type: Low Recoil Special Purpose — Base Damage: 3D-3
Ammunition Cost: Cr200 per 100 rounds
Base Range: 40m
Base Ammunition Capacity: 20 rounds
Base Capacity Variation -20%
Signature: Physical (normal)
Inaccurate -2
Penetration -1

Mechanism: Fully Automatic — none — none — Automatic 3
Receiver Totals ———— Cr300.00 - 2.0kg
Barrel: Assault ———— Cr60.00 - 0.6kg - Range -50%, Quickdraw +2
Stock: Stockless ——— Cr0 - 0.0kg — Quickdraw +2, Inaccurate (25m) -2
Totals ——————— Cr360.00 - 2.6kg
Snubbed: Salty

1. Outside of gold plated, customized weapons made as gifts or ornaments, cost probably plays an issue what's worthwhile employing.

2. Someone mentioned that the fastest way to reload a revolver is pulling out another, loaded one.

3. An extended magazine gets in the way of Quickdraw.

4. Snub weapon systems are optimal for close quarters combat.

5. Vacuumized is probably a needed feature for those onboard spacecraft.

6. If the Snub weapon is cheap and light enough, you can carry two, so rugged may not be necessary.

7. I don't think it's necessary to explore a longarms variant, as all that helps out with is recoil and overheating at twenty percent more weight and a third more cost.

8. Current rules on folding stock probably isn't worth that minus one on accuracy, considering snub ammunition is inherently inaccurate.

9. Moving to assault weapon from handgun means a seventy two percent increase in cost, and a two hundred fifty percent increase in weight, but fully automatic is a freebie, which if kept, makes it more of a forty two percent increase in cost.
Last edited:
Snubbed: Salty

A. A maxed out capacity eighteen round machine carbine pistol with burst is five hundred nineteen and three quarters starbux and weighs one and five eights kilogrammes.

B. A default assault weapon carbine variant with sixteen rounds with full automatic is three hundred sixty starbux and weights two and three thirds kilogrammes.

C. Quickdraw is six versus four, and weight difference sixty percent.

D. In terms of cost, the assault weapon would be cheaper to improve, and has the potential to modify ammunition capacity to thirty six rounds.

E. I couldn't say if a maxed out assault weapon magazine can fit into a maxed out handgun; I doubt it would fit into the grip.

F. Since the idea would be a straight forward assault, Quickdraw probably doesn't matter that much, except around corners.
Shocked Stockless

A weapon with no stock at all cannot be fired from the shoulder and is difficult to steady. Aimed fire at ranges beyond 25m is subject to DM-2. A Stockless weapon may have a mounting for a stock, at negligible cost and weight, in which case it is covered by a butt cap until a stock of some kind is mounted. A Stockless longarm or assault weapon gains +2 to Quickdraw.

1. Just noticed that handguns can't benefit from being stockless.

2. Only benefit is attaching one, to eliminate long range penalty of minus two for ranges over twenty five metres.

3. So a handgun with a carbine barrel has a Quickdraw of six, while a stockless assault weapon would also have a Quickdraw of six.
Assault weapons are almost always constructed for burst or full-automatic fire, at no additional cost. ‘Civilian’ versions, capable of semi-automatic fire only, are typically available at the same cost. It is generally possible to convert these back to full-automatic with a few simple adjustments, though it is illegal to do so in many locales. An assault weapon has a base Quickdraw 2.

1. Civilian versions tend to be semi automatic, which would make it a waste to pay three hundred starbux for something you can get for one hundred seventy five.

2. Repeater mechanism would lower the cost to one hundred fifty starbux with eight rounds, fix that and it's hundred thirty five starbux and one and four fifths kilogrammes.

3. Only real benefit would be extra recoil and overheating, which with single shots, you're less likely to benefit.

4. It's like the handgun Quickdraw of four incorporates stocklessness, compared to a stocked assault weapon of two.
Snubbed: Salty

G. Armament companies can design and manufacture their own versions of snub weapon platforms.

H. My concern is finding one that the Confederation military can and would buy and assign to it's personnel and allies.

I. If possible, one general issue version, to simplify logistics.

J. For that, identify under what conditions and situations it would most likely be used.

K. And that seems to be a stockless assault weapon, with an assault barrel.
Snubbed: Salty

L. Any weapon not adapted for vacuum, other than energy weapons, temporarily gains the Unreliable (1) trait.

M. There is no effect out to 100 metres, after which DM-2 applies to shots made out to 1,000 metres.

N. Extreme range can be considered doubled in minimal or zero gravity.

O. You don't really want an unreliable for a large capacity weapon system.

P. A weapon’s degree of Unreliable is indicated by a score in the range 1–5. When this weapon is used, an additional 1D of a different colour is thrown along with the usual 2D check. If this dice comes up equal to or less than the unreliability value for the weapon it suffers a malfunction.
Last edited:
Snubbed: Salty

Q. So for a military issued snub weapon, you want them vacuumized.

R. Those weapons would be used for specific environments, where the normal slug throwers would be at a disadvantage.

S. Handgun variants would be either burst fire or fully automatic, considering the low recoil, and inaccuracy.

T. And then you have the civilian market.

U. And because vacuumization is a new trait, integrating it with legacy equipment hasn't occurred; I tend to think that specifically semi automatic snub pistols, especially those with greater capacity than that of the listed pistol, would have this trait, and of course, the increased cost.
Snubbed: Salty

V. Which brings us to the snub revolver.

W. Certainly not in the assault category, even with a six chamber cylinder.

X. However, the base four chamber cylinder would only have a one in six chance in malfunctioning.

Y. And, presumably, you can just press the trigger again and click past that.

Z. It would certainly help keep the recommended retail price down, and you could carry a second revolver.
Snubbed: Salty

1. Being military issue, you might as well go technological level nine Advanced Projectile Weapon.

2. Twenty five percent increased cost gets you ten percent weight reduction, a quarter range increase, and drops a physical signature level.

3. The range doesn't really matter, until it does, but places effective range at twenty five metres for a carbine barrel, which chimes in with stockless.

4. Accurized is too expensive, especially for over twenty five metres bonus.

5. Bullpup only if happen to have a stock, which isn't in the cards.

6. The Crewmate semi bullpup, where you retain the Quickdraw bonus, without a stock, seems a cheat but worth investigating.

7. Compact seems more special forces.

8. Cooling system basic is too large.

9. Cooling system advanced adds twenty percent to weight, but that fifty percent cost increase again would indicate special forces.
Snubbed: Salty

A. High Capacity, fifty percent, twenty four rounds.

B. High Quality, over hundred metres, so no.

C. Increased Rate of Fire, pretty easy to increase automatic three to four to get rapid fire, but that means I'd have to go back a chapter to read up on that.

D. Three to six seems a bit implausible for snub bullets, but if the rules allow it, certainly worth an examination.

E. Lightweight in microgravity; too many negatives.

F. Lightweight Extreme, seems spyware.
This Gun Could Reach Space

Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Mike Ridolfi
Animator: Eli Prenten
Sound: Graham Haerther
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster

1. One hundred eighty klix altitude.

2. Overcoming air resistance.

3. Pressure front.

4. Solid propellant and four hundred fifty klix.

5. Hydrogen propellant,
Snubbed: Salty

G. Low Quality weapons for the military shouldn't be manufactured in peacetime.

H. Ramshackle is worth two deficiency points and combines inaccuracy and hazardous, factor one each.

I. Unreliable three deficiency points.

J. Inaccurate for snub weapon platforms makes me think that it might hit the shooter, instead.

K. Hazardous, in this regard, makes me assume that the bullet gets stuck and blows up the gun.
Snubbed: Salty

L. Low quality weapons should be manufactured for local use.

M. Besides the argument for the cost of shipping across interstellar distances, against the likely effect they would have, if you needs lots of cheap weapons for immediate use, the planetary factories should, and would, be more suitable.

N. If they weren't manufactured in any number of garages and workshops.

O. In theory, unreliable at forty percent discount against three deficiency points would appear the best bargain.

P. Unreliable on a more less normal gravitated world, that won't be aggravated by an additional point by operating in a vacuum or low gravitational environment.
The STEN (or Sten gun) is a family of British submachine guns chambered in 9×19mm which were used extensively by British and Commonwealth forces throughout World War II and the Korean War. They had a simple design and very low production cost, making them effective insurgency weapons for resistance groups, and they continue to see usage to this day by irregular military forces. The Sten served as the basis for the Sterling submachine gun, which replaced the Sten in British service until the 1990s, when it, and all other submachine guns, were replaced by the SA80.

The Sten is a select fire, blowback-operated weapon which mounts its magazine on the left. Sten is an acronym, from the names of the weapon's chief designers, Major Reginald V. Shepherd and Harold J. Turpin, and "En" for the Enfield factory.[9] Over four million Stens in various versions were made in the 1940s, making it the second most produced submachine gun of the Second World War, after the Soviet PPSh-41.


The Sten emerged while Britain was engaged in the Battle of Britain, facing invasion by Germany. The army was forced to replace weapons lost during the evacuation from Dunkirk while expanding at the same time. After the start of the war and to 1941 (and even later), the British purchased all the Thompson submachine guns they could from the United States, but these did not meet demand, and Thompsons were expensive, the M1928 costing $200 in 1939 (and still $70 in 1942), whereas a Sten would turn out to cost only $11.[12] American entry into the war at the end of 1941 placed an even bigger demand on the facilities making Thompsons. In order to rapidly equip a sufficient fighting force to counter the Axis threat, the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, was commissioned to produce an alternative.


The Sten shared design features, such as its side-mounted magazine configuration, with the Lanchester submachine gun being produced at the same time for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, which was a copy of the German MP28. In terms of manufacture, the Lanchester was entirely different, being made of high-quality materials with pre-war fit and finish, in stark contrast to the Sten's austere execution. The Lanchester and Sten magazines were even interchangeable (though the Lanchester's magazine was longer with a 50-round capacity, compared to the Sten's 32.)[13]

The Sten used simple stamped metal components and minor welding, which required minimal machining and manufacturing. Much of the production could be performed by small workshops, with the firearms assembled at the Enfield site. Over the period of manufacture, the Sten design was further simplified: the most basic model, the Mark III, could be produced from five man-hours of work.[14] Some of the cheapest versions were made from only 47 different parts. The Mark I was a more finely finished weapon with a wooden foregrip and handle; later versions were generally more spartan, although the final version, the Mark V, which was produced after the threat of invasion had died down, was produced to a higher standard.

The Sten underwent various design improvements over the course of the war. For example, the Mark 4 cocking handle and corresponding hole drilled in the receiver were created to lock the bolt in the closed position to reduce the likelihood of unintentional discharges inherent in the design. Most changes to the production process were more subtle, designed to give greater ease of manufacture and increased reliability, and the potentially great differences in build quality contributed to the Sten's reputation as being an unreliable weapon. However, a 1940 report stated that "Exaggerated reports about the unreliability [of the Sten] were usually related to the quality of manufacture. Don Handscombe and his comrades in the Thundersley Patrol of the Auxiliary Units rated them more reliable than the Thompson SMG."[15] Sten guns of late 1942 and beyond were highly effective weapons, though complaints of accidental discharge continued throughout the war.


The German MP40, Russian PPSh-41, and US M3 submachine gun, among others, used the same operating mechanisms and design philosophy of the Sten, namely their low cost and ease of manufacture. Though the MP40 was also built largely for this purpose, Otto Skorzeny went on record saying that he preferred the Sten because it required less raw material to produce and performed better under adverse combat conditions.[16] The effect of putting lightweight automatic weaponry into the hands of soldiers greatly increased the short-range firepower of the infantry, especially when the main infantry weapon was a bolt-action rifle capable of only around 15 rounds per minute and not suited for short-range combat.[citation needed] The open-bolt firing mechanism, short barrel and use of pistol ammunition severely restricted accuracy and stopping power, with an effective range of only around 100 m (330 ft), compared to 500 m (1,600 ft) for the Lee–Enfield rifle.

Stoppages could occur for poor maintenance, while others were particular to the Sten. Carbon build up on the face of the breech or debris in the bolt raceway could cause a failure to fire, while a dirty chamber could cause a failure to feed.[17] Firing the Sten by grasping the magazine with the supporting hand, contrary to instruction, tended to wear the magazine catch, altering the angle of feed and causing a failure to feed; the correct method of holding the weapon was as with a rifle, the left hand cradling the fore piece.


On the other hand, a beneficial side-effect of the Sten's minimalist design was that it would fire without any lubrication.[17] This proved useful in desert environments such as the Western Desert campaign, where lubricating oil retained dust and sand.


The open bolt design combined with cheap manufacture and rudimentary safety devices also meant the weapon was prone to accidental discharges, which proved hazardous. A simple safety could be engaged while the bolt was in the rearwards (cocked) position. However, if a loaded Sten with the bolt in the closed position was dropped, or the butt was knocked against the ground, the bolt could move far enough rearward to pick up a round (but not far enough to be engaged by the trigger mechanism) and the spring pressure could be enough to chamber and fire the round. The Mk. IV's cocking handle was designed to prevent this by enabling the bolt to be locked in its forward position, immobilising it. Wear and manufacturing tolerances could render these safety devices ineffective. Though the Sten was somewhat prone to malfunction, in the hands of a well-trained soldier, who knew how to avoid the Sten's failings, they were less of a liability as otherwise may be suggested. According to Leroy Thompson, "Troops usually made the conscious choice to keep the Sten with a magazine in place, based on the assumption that they might need it quickly. It might, then, be argued that more troops were saved by having their Sten ready when an enemy was suddenly encountered than were injured by accident. The Sten was more dangerous to its users than most infantry weapons, but all weapons are dangerous".[16]


Rate of fire version dependent; ~500–600 round/min
Muzzle velocity 365 m/s (1,198 ft/s) 305 m/s (1,001 ft/s) (suppressed models)
Last edited:
Snubbed: Salty

Q. Is for Quickdraw, which for snub weapon platforms is very interesting.

R. Twenty percent cost increase, but you get an additional plus two on Quickdraw.

S. More importantly, you get plus one on attack rolls at under twenty five metres range, which means a total of minus one on inaccuracy.

T. Balanced by minus one at twenty five metres and above, total minus three on inaccuracy.

U. Since in theory you want to keep combat within that twenty five sphere when equipped with snub weapons, somewhat expensive but probably worth it.