Expanded Guns Tables

[Smoking Frog]

Here's an interesting quote I just stole from Wikipedia. The speaker is a British soldier who was shot in the back while wearing body armor:

"(...) I was hit in the back by a single shot. It must have been from about 200–300 metres away. The round knocked me down in an instant, it felt like being hit by a sledge-hammer at full swing. I slammed into the dirt face down. (...) I was in agony, I certainly couldn't walk on my own (...) I think it was a 7.62mm round. That's a high calibre bullet to be hit by, but it shows you that the body armour works. I wouldn't be sitting here now telling you this story, if I wasn't wearing one. Thank you to whoever designed the body armour. If I ever meet them, I'd like to buy them a pint.

—Lance Sergeant Daniel Collins"

This gives you some idea of how much energy you are dealing with. He was wearing a military grade vest and the round had traveled 2 to 3 hundred meters.

I stole the quote from the "personal armor" article.

[Atgxtg]

In which case the bullet has also avoided the body armour, just like the knife did in your example. As far as I can see the damage ranges for each weapon coupled with specials and crits are more than enough to take into account how well a given round hits you and how much of an effect it has. The both mental stress and physical trauma are accounted for by the hitpoints. Maybe it was a .22 and you rolled a special. Looking at real world statistics it's easy to say, no way could that do 12 points of damage, that's enough to kill a health man. But when it happens in the field maybe it just hurts like **** and there's claret everywhere and you've decided you really don't like getting shot so if it happens again you're going to sit this one out. That's how I'd explain any problems on that side of it.

But the specials and crticals come up more more frequently in BRP that they do with real bullets. At leat as far as body armor is concerned. 20% of the hits is too high.

Not that I can point you too. It was a few years ago I read it. Perhaps I chose my words a little hastily as well. I don't mean they'd literally tear the jacket apart but it won't be able to absorb enough of the kinetic energy to save you. They may not actually penetrate but that energy has to go somewhere and Kevlar plates have a limit to how much they can handle.

Okay. I see what you are saying. I disagree with your conclusion, though. Sure, a lot of the keneitic energy is going to get dumped into the target. But the impact is still going to be spread over a larger area, and won't be penetrating and damaging vital organs. So the target should be "saved", although he might not think so, lying on the group with several broken ribs, some nasty brusing, and internal hemmoraging.

[Atgxtg]

Obviously one could argue all day about what the appropriate measure of damage should be, but kinetic energy is obviously a big part of that equation. Given how disparate the energy levels are, to be realistic, I think you need to keep pistol data and rifle data separate. There's loads of data on pistol shootings because that is what law enforcement shoot outs usually involve.

Your chances of having your arm remain functioning after getting shot obviously change when the energy you absorb goes from 519 joules to 3,799. And think about something with that much energy hitting you in the chest, not to mention the head!

Yes, the change, but the relationship is not a linear one. That is what the problem s with most RPGs. 2D8 damage is twice as good as 1D8.

It can get very complicated in real life. For one thing, where the bullet hits is probably the single most important factor, and it is usually downplayed. For example, a .50 caliber MG round has about 32 times the energy of a 9mm pistol round, but if it hits out in the pinky, it probably ins't going to kill you. Not only that, but it only "dump" a small fraction of it's Kinetic Energy into you. If the bullet imbeds inselt into a brick wall, all he enegy going into the wall isn"t going into you (and that is a good thing for you).

If you look at the casulatiy rates for combat, you will see that rifles are not that much more lethal than pistols. Most the guys who get shot, live. Assuming they get medical care. THat holds for more than just guns, too. People are actually a lot more resislent that most people think. The vast majority of fatalties tend to occur long after the battle. It is just that most games use a "bang, you dead" method and ignore delayed fatalties.

Dragonewt has wisely pointed out BRTC's 3G supplment, and Greg Porter does do a good job of covering a lot of this ground. IMO as good as anyone else does in the RPG field.

[Atgxtg]

(And again I have to emphasize this is not discussing longer term effects; the same people who walked out of the fight bleeding but operant might well fall over dead fifteen minutes later and/or be unable to do much effective two hours later.)

Quite true. I was reading something where a woman empied her weapon into an attacker. The guy took the weapon away from her, beat her with it, and bleed to death an hour later.

[KingSkin]

But the specials and crticals come up more more frequently in BRP that they do with real bullets. At leat as far as body armor is concerned. 20% of the hits is too high.

Maybe it is, but I don't mind the abstraction for the ease of play. Or just abolish special successes so it's only 5% of hits. That's still probably a bit too high so you could just drop crits to a straigh 1% regardless of skill.

I don't mind it as is though.

Okay. I see what you are saying. I disagree with your conclusion, though. Sure, a lot of the keneitic energy is going to get dumped into the target. But the impact is still going to be spread over a larger area, and won't be penetrating and damaging vital organs. So the target should be "saved", although he might not think so, lying on the group with several broken ribs, some nasty brusing, and internal hemmoraging.

But several broken ribs and internal haemorrhaging is easily enough to kill someone. It may not be immediate but when I run games I don't assume 0 HP means you're in a come or outright dead, just that you're incapable of taking any action. Whether that's due to shock (which can kill all by itself), pain or physical damage is for the GM to describe to the players. If you read the earlier description from the guy getting hit, imagine if he'd been by a 3-round burst. And remember that because the armour can't absord all the energy the 2nd and 3rd hits will effectively be a lot harder than the first one.

[Smoking Frog]

Yes, the change, but the relationship is not a linear one. That is what the problem s with most RPGs. 2D8 damage is twice as good as 1D8.

It can get very complicated in real life. For one thing, where the bullet hits is probably the single most important factor, and it is usually downplayed. For example, a .50 caliber MG round has about 32 times the energy of a 9mm pistol round, but if it hits out in the pinky, it probably ins't going to kill you. Not only that, but it only "dump" a small fraction of it's Kinetic Energy into you. If the bullet imbeds inselt into a brick wall, all he enegy going into the wall isn"t going into you (and that is a good thing for you).

If you look at the casulatiy rates for combat, you will see that rifles are not that much more lethal than pistols. Most the guys who get shot, live. Assuming they get medical care. THat holds for more than just guns, too. People are actually a lot more resislent that most people think. The vast majority of fatalties tend to occur long after the battle. It is just that most games use a "bang, you dead" method and ignore delayed fatalties.

Dragonewt has wisely pointed out BRTC's 3G supplment, and Greg Porter does do a good job of covering a lot of this ground. IMO as good as anyone else does in the RPG field.

I hope I've not said anything to suggest that I'm so dense that I don't know that there is a difference between being shot in the hand and being shot in the head. If you are playing in a setting that uses firearms and even a little bit of realism, I don't see how you can do it without using hit locations and HP per location.

There have been many studies of shootings with handgun ammo to look at "one shot stopping" or some variation on that idea. Generally, they will exclude from the study incidents where the person was shot in the head or extremities because the one shot stopping percentage of head shots skews the data up and shots in the extremities skews it down. So usually you're just looking at people shot in the chest or groin with pistol ammo. "Stopping" is variously defined, but it is never "lethality," rather usually something like: stops shooting or stabbing and doesn't walk more than 10 feet before collapsing. For many types of ammo, like high powered 9mm or powerful .45 ACP, the studies will show one stop percentages in the 90s. That is, someone shot in the chest or groin with one of those rounds is more than 90% likely to be out of the fight. There's a lot of variation, of course, and there's lots of debate over the value of the data and/or analysis. But all of these studies give the impression that shooting someone in the chest with at least a medium powered pistol gives you a good chance of putting him out of the fight. (That of course matters a lot more than whether he dies now or at the ripe age of 98; so long as he's not fighting me anymore, I don't have to worry about him. If he's not out of the fight, I need to shoot him a few more times.)

Military body armor covers the chest and groin because everyone knows that injuries there are much more serious than in unarmored areas like arms and legs. The rules for hits in different locations seem to do this right: the consequence of high damage in your head or chest is much more lethal/incapacitating than high damage in a limb.

I don't know what exactly you mean by rifles and pistols having the same lethality. Certainly if you are shot someplace other than the head or chest/groin, you're not likely to die no matter what you're shot with so long as you get prompt medical attention to stop the bleeding. But I've never seen anything to suggest that being shot in the head or chest with a rifle is no more likely to kill you than being shot with a pistol. And here, again, range is a big issue. Most law enforcement shoot outs are at 7 yards or less. You can get hit from rifle fire from hundreds of meters. (And the .50 sniper rifle seems pretty lethal at a mile.) The chance of getting a hit at 300 meters with a pistol is zero or close to it. But 300 meters is within the normal range for combat with rifles.

You might state this as being shot in the head with a pistol or rifle are both likely to kill me or at least put me out of action immediately. The significant difference is that a head shot with a rifle is likely at a much further range. The same would be true for chest and groin shots.

[Atgxtg]

Maybe it is, but I don't mind the abstraction for the ease of play. Or just abolish special successes so it's only 5% of hits. That's still probably a bit too high so you could just drop crits to a straigh 1% regardless of skill.

I don't mind it as is though.

I do mind that bit of abstration, though. If anything it is worse that the light, medium, heavy pistol abstraction.

But several broken ribs and internal haemorrhaging is easily enough to kill someone. It may not be immediate but when I run games I don't assume 0 HP means you're in a come or outright dead, just that you're incapable of taking any action. Whether that's due to shock (which can kill all by itself), pain or physical damage is for the GM to describe to the players. If you read the earlier description from the guy getting hit, imagine if he'd been by a 3-round burst. And remember that because the armour can't absord all the energy the 2nd and 3rd hits will effectively be a lot harder than the first one.

Ah, but that is a houserule. In general BRP doesn't do delayed fatalities. I wish it did. A 4 point chest wound can kill you if it isn't treated properly.

Likewise, the broken ribs and hemmoaging could be survived with proper medical care. Something that tends to be glossed over in most RPGs (as does digging out the bullets!).

[Atgxtg]

I hope I've not said anything to suggest that I'm so dense that I don't know that there is a difference between being shot in the hand and being shot in the head. If you are playing in a setting that uses firearms and even a little bit of realism, I don't see how you can do it without using hit locations and HP per location..

By location I mean more than just the general hit locations used in BRP. Not all hits to the chest are the same, even if they are from the same weapon an do the same "damage". It might work that way in most RPGs, but it doesn't in real life. That is what I mean about how it can get really complicated. A high powered rifle round might go right through someone, miss all the vital organs, and a low caliber pistol round could hit a vital organ and kill the guy.

In BRP, as with most RPGs, damage is mostly a factor of a random die roll, tied to the bullet. Skill places a small factor (crits and specials), but high damage die tends to trump high skill.

[Atgxtg]

I hope I've not said anything to suggest that I'm so dense that I don't know that there is a difference between being shot in the hand and being shot in the head. If you are playing in a setting that uses firearms and even a little bit of realism, I don't see how you can do it without using hit locations and HP per location..

By location I mean more than just the general hit locations used in BRP. Not all hits to the chest are the same, even if they are from the same weapon an do the same "damage". It might work that way in most RPGs, but it doesn't in real life. That is what I mean about how it can get really complicated. A high powered rifle round might go right through someone, miss all the vital organs, and a low caliber pistol round could hit a vital organ and kill the guy.

In BRP, as with most RPGs, damage is mostly a factor of a random die roll, tied to the bullet. Skill places a small factor (crits and specials), but high damage die tends to trump high skill.

[Smoking Frog]

By location I mean more than just the general hit locations used in BRP. Not all hits to the chest are the same, even if they are from the same weapon an do the same "damage". It might work that way in most RPGs, but it doesn't in real life. That is what I mean about how it can get really complicated. A high powered rifle round might go right through someone, miss all the vital organs, and a low caliber pistol round could hit a vital organ and kill the guy.

In BRP, as with most RPGs, damage is mostly a factor of a random die roll, tied to the bullet. Skill places a small factor (crits and specials), but high damage die tends to trump high skill.

Well, as I noted above, if you think shot people only fall into the category of dead and not dead, you're ignoring a lot of complications. Other than the brain and heart, I don't think you have an organ that results in instant death. Blood loss, on the other hand, is a big deal. You can't lower your blood pressure significantly and it not effect you.

The random damage rolls are the way BRP simulates the difference between a hit that miraculously misses anything needed, and one that drops you, especially when you are using the damage per hit location. For example, if you have a total of 12 HP, your chest has 5 HP. If you are shot by a 9mm (medium pistol) in the chest, assuming no CRIT or SPEC and not at extreme range, you will take 1D8. If you take 5, 6, 7 or 8 points of damage (50% chance), you are down and only able to crawl. (And if it's less damage, you're not even knocked down). If you are shot by an assault rifle in the chest, again assuming base damage, you will take 2D6+2. If you get a miracle roll of 4 points of damage (a 1/36 chance) you're not even knocked down. Without a CRIT or SPEC, you have a 50% of "shrugging off" a 9mm hit in the chest, while you only have a 1/36 chance of 'shrugging off' a hit from an assault rifle in the chest. That does not seem too far outside the expected to me.

Actually, high skill is a huge advantage if you are using hit locations. Aiming at a specific area is Difficult, so you have a 1/2 chance. But if your character is an SAS anti-terrorist guy with pistol 100%, he has a base 50% chance to get a head shot. And of course if you are within DEX/3 meters, it is Easy. If you allow skills over 100%, the SAS anti-terrorist guy may have a pistol skill of 150, meaning a base 75% chance for a head shot. (Before I get hate mail from any SAS guys: I know you can shoot 5 terrorist in the head, twice each, in under 10 seconds, while ironing a shirt and faxing an order for Chinese take out. I'm just using it as an example.) This also seems to be the expected result: "super soldiers" are extremely dangerous because, among other things, they do so much firearms training that they would expect to be able to shoot their opponents in the head, probably more than once.

[rust]

Just a few quick remarks from the sidelines ...

The kinetic energy of the projectile certainly is important, but the size is also an

important factor. A bigger projectile causes a bigger wound channel and has a

higher probability to damage something vital. The most dangerous ammunition

ever used throughout history probably were the big minie balls used in the 19th

century, for example the American Civil War, because of the size of the wounds

they caused. With this kind of ammunition it was somewhat less important where

you hit the target, almost every wound was bad enough to disable it.

[Smoking Frog]

Just a few quick remarks from the sidelines ...

The kinetic energy of the projectile certainly is important, but the size is also an

important factor. A bigger projectile causes a bigger wound channel and has a

higher probability to damage something vital. The most dangerous ammunition

ever used throughout history probably were the big minie balls used in the 19th

century, for example the American Civil War, because of the size of the wounds

they caused. With this kind of ammunition it was somewhat less important where

you hit the target, almost every wound was bad enough to disable it.

Yes. I'm sure the minie ball would be outlawed if anyone tried to use it now. As I recall, the minie ball's slow muzzle velocity actually made the wounds more serious. A modern rifle round, if it doesn't tumble or deform, with its lovely pointed tip might just zip through some part of you, taking some of its energy with it. Because the minie ball was both big and moving relatively slowly (by modern ballistics standards) it would take a leisurely stroll through whatever it hit, tearing a monster hole in it. I was amazed when I read that during the Civil War, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (future US Supreme Court Justice) survived, among other wounds, a minie ball passing through his neck. Ouch. Obviously he was down after that one and spent a night trying not to drown in blood.

[rust]

As I recall, the minie ball's slow muzzle velocity actually made the wounds more serious.

Yes, each type of projectile causes its maximum wound cavity, and therefore its

maximum tissue damage, after a certain distance of tissue penetration. With a

"fast" projectile, this point of maximum damage would often be behind the target.

For example, many of the modern rifle projectiles have their point of maximum da-

mage after a tissue penetration of about 50 cm, but there are few potential tar-

gets with a body 50 cm or more deep, so most of the projectile's energy is was-

ted and even reduces the actual damage caused by a hit. On the other hand, a

"slow" projectile with a point of maximum damage after a tissue penetration of

only 10 cm is likely to do its maximum damage with every body hit.

[Smoking Frog]

Long ago in my misspent youth, I did some Civil War re-enactment, and along the way, I picked up a decent collection of actual minie balls that had been recovered from various battlefields. A lot of them were still pretty much in the original shape, and holding one in your hand makes you really understand how massive it was compared to modern bullets. And the nose was anything but pointy. One got the image of a "fist" pounding through you rather than a spear point.

[Nightshade]

I've been focusing on military type rifles. If you mix pistol, shotgun, and rifle data, I think it's like looking at traffic fatalities and not distinguishing when cars are going 65 mph and when they are going 25 mph. The formula for kinetic energy is E = 1/2 (m*v[squared]). So

The problem is there's still enough rifles and shotguns in that study that if that was much of a factor you'd expect it would have turned up on some of the data at least, but it was functionally nonexistant. So there's obvious a problem somewhere here. The best I can assume is that the issue tilts when burst and autofire is involved in some way, because otherwise the data can't be reconciled.

[Nightshade]

Yes, each type of projectile causes its maximum wound cavity, and therefore its

maximum tissue damage, after a certain distance of tissue penetration. With a

"fast" projectile, this point of maximum damage would often be behind the target.

For example, many of the modern rifle projectiles have their point of maximum da-

mage after a tissue penetration of about 50 cm, but there are few potential tar-

gets with a body 50 cm or more deep, so most of the projectile's energy is was-

ted and even reduces the actual damage caused by a hit. On the other hand, a

"slow" projectile with a point of maximum damage after a tissue penetration of

only 10 cm is likely to do its maximum damage with every body hit.

That's one reason that even the single metric of muzzle energy (the best one I've found to use if you absolutely have to try and simplify it) isn't perfect.

[dragonewt]

Has cavitation and hydrostatic shock been considered, regarding higher velocity rounds?

[rust]

Has cavitation and hydrostatic shock been considered, regarding higher velocity rounds?

It seems that hydrostatic shock can cause damage to brain tissue because of

the shock wave transmitted through the blood in the blood vessels, but it is

still not certain in what percentage of the cases this happens, whether it is a

normal result of a hit with a high velocity round or a rare exception. Looking at

the many cases of persons hit by high velocity rounds and not suffering from

any symptoms of brain damage, I would hesitate to count it among the normal-

ly important damage factors.

As for cavitation, I am not aware of any convincing studies, but this does not

mean that they do not exist.

[Atgxtg]

Just a few quick remarks from the sidelines ...

The kinetic energy of the projectile certainly is important, but the size is also an

important factor. A bigger projectile causes a bigger wound channel and has a

higher probability to damage something vital. The most dangerous ammunition

ever used throughout history probably were the big minie balls used in the 19th

century, for example the American Civil War, because of the size of the wounds

they caused. With this kind of ammunition it was somewhat less important where

you hit the target, almost every wound was bad enough to disable it.

I'd take a 7.62/.303/.30-06/etc. over a minie ball any day, damage wise. I think the n\major reason for the minie-balls "deadliness" was Civil War era medical care.

The "big slow bullet" argument really doesn`t hold up. Otherwise modern armies and police would simply take some powerder out and put more lead in to thier bullets. Size helps, especially mass, but you still need sufficient energy to do real damage.

[Atgxtg]

Well, as I noted above, if you think shot people only fall into the category of dead and not dead, you're ignoring a lot of complications. Other than the brain and heart, I don't think you have an organ that results in instant death. Blood loss, on the other hand, is a big deal. You can't lower your blood pressure significantly and it not effect you.

becuase in a fight, you can ingore those complications. I doesn`t matter much if the guy you shot is going to be crippled for life, or that he might die in 3 hours if neither effect kicksin until after the battle.

As far as BRP goes, unfortnately, there are only two results. The guy either runs out of HP somewhere (or takes a major wound), or he is still fighting. Things like brain damage, or other permanet types of damage, are not factored ito the game.

The random damage rolls are the way BRP simulates the difference between a hit that miraculously misses anything needed, and one that drops you, especially when you are using the damage per hit location. For example, if you have a total of 12 HP, your chest has 5 HP. If you are shot by a 9mm (medium pistol) in the chest, assuming no CRIT or SPEC and not at extreme range, you will take 1D8. If you take 5, 6, 7 or 8 points of damage (50% chance), you are down and only able to crawl. (And if it's less damage, you're not even knocked down). If you are shot by an assault rifle in the chest, again assuming base damage, you will take 2D6+2. If you get a miracle roll of 4 points of damage (a 1/36 chance) you're not even knocked down. Without a CRIT or SPEC, you have a 50% of "shrugging off" a 9mm hit in the chest, while you only have a 1/36 chance of 'shrugging off' a hit from an assault rifle in the chest. That does not seem too far outside the expected to me.

First off, my point is that this result is enitrly based on luck and weapon damage die, rather than skill.

Secondly, the results might be what you expected, but as people have been saying, our expectations are wrong. 97% of people shot in the chest by assault rifles don`t just drop. BRP is, in fact, far more lethal than reality.

Actually, high skill is a huge advantage if you are using hit locations. Aiming at a specific area is Difficult, so you have a 1/2 chance. But if your character is an SAS anti-terrorist guy with pistol 100%, he has a base 50% chance to get a head shot. And of course if you are within DEX/3 meters, it is Easy. If you allow skills over 100%, the SAS anti-terrorist guy may have a pistol skill of 150, meaning a base 75% chance for a head shot. (Before I get hate mail from any SAS guys: I know you can shoot 5 terrorist in the head, twice each, in under 10 seconds, while ironing a shirt and faxing an order for Chinese take out. I'm just using it as an example.) This also seems to be the expected result: "super soldiers" are extremely dangerous because, among other things, they do so much firearms training that they would expect to be able to shoot their opponents in the head, probably more than once.

No, high skill is a minor advatagein BRP. Each of those terrorsts have a much better chance of dropping the SAS guy with a burst from thier AKMs than he has of pulling off the head shots. The 2D8 assault rifle damage plays a much larger factor than skill or hit locations. Remember, torso and abdomen hits are about as deadly, and limb hits can incapacitate and kill in BRP.

[rust]

Otherwise modern armies and police would simply take some powerder out and put more lead in to thier bullets.

Or they would discuss to replace the light, fast 5.56x45mm NATO (4 g, 940 m/s)

with the heavier, slower 6.8mm Remington SPC (7.45 g, 785 m/s), as they actu-

ally do, and many special forces units already did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_SPC

[Atgxtg]

Or they would discuss to replace the light, fast 5.56x45mm NATO (4 g, 940 m/s)

with the heavier, slower 6.8mm Remington SPC (7.45 g, 785 m/s), as they actu-

ally do, and many special forces units already did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_SPC

Not quite the same argument, rust. There quite a difference between going from a 5.56 to a 6.8mm and going to a to a big, slow 13mm mini-ball. Plus the 6.8 remington doesn:t give up velocity or energy in comparsion to the standard 5.56 round.

Many weapons could become more effective with a heavier, slower round. Up to a point. Eventually the loss of energy makes the tradeoff not worth it.

I don:t believe that the mini-ball is as effective a damage doer as a modern 7.62. It might make a wider hole, but it is a shallower one.

Hey, since we can`t go around shooting poeple to prove this, you think we could send it in to Mythbusters?

Edited June 16, 2011 by Atgxtg

[Smoking Frog]

Secondly, the results might be what you expected, but as people have been saying, our expectations are wrong. 97% of people shot in the chest by assault rifles don`t just drop. BRP is, in fact, far more lethal than reality.

Are you referring to any studies that have looked at people who have been shot in the chest by an assault rifle? How do you know what percentage of people when shot in the chest will stay standing? Look at the quote from the soldier in my post #76. Given his description of what it was like to be shot while wearing armor, and from what I've seen and read, that does not seem like an unusual experience.

[Toadmaster]

There is a really good book I would recommend to anyone wanting to seriously try to model guns in an RPG, Understanding Ballistics by Robert Rinker.

Not only does he cover a ton of useful basic gun stuff relating to accuracy, range etc, he gets into many of the different theories of terminal ballistics, covering defensive, hunting and sporting use. It won't give you a magic formula but it does provide a lot of opinion from the various camps to allow some real thought about how to make guns work in a game and make the rules appear realistic.

For less than $20 it provides a lot of real science, and "expert" opinion citing many of the major studies without getting all hairy chested or opinionated. The author provides the info, but presents it in a way that lets the reader decide for themselves.

[Atgxtg]

Are you referring to any studies that have looked at people who have been shot in the chest by an assault rifle? How do you know what percentage of people when shot in the chest will stay standing? Look at the quote from the soldier in my post #76. Given his description of what it was like to be shot while wearing armor, and from what I've seen and read, that does not seem like an unusual experience.

Well, for starters, look at the caulaty figures for combat. You will see that the majoirty of people who get shot, survive the battle. And that includes those hit in the chest with bullets from assault rifles.

This kinda touches upon what I mean about damage being too tied to bullet type/weapon. In the RPG an assault rifle does twice as much damage as a medium pistol, regardless of who is uning it or where he target is hit. If real life, rifle bullets often over penetrate the target. The whole thing isn't quite as linear as the game mechanics are. .