Basically this thread comes out of a disscussion between myself and another but I thought I would expand the discussion into a wide range of 40k tech that bugs people

first off the basics with real life counterpoints and my personal thoughts/knowledge

Autoguns- These are basically Marginally stronger than modern assault rifles, and depending on the fluff, about as strong as lasguns, or "stronger" i.e. penetrate better. Though some fluff has lasguns destroying tanks (think C.S. Goto like fluff knowledge)
Heavy stubbers- Machine guns of all kinds from MG42's to MH2B's
Autocannons- just that 20-30mm autocannons (though the OLD OLD OLD OLD wargear book says they are basically modern tank cannons, most of the new stuff puts them at around the level of a high end bushmaster)

Boltguns- and heres where the main discussion comes from, Bolt weapons are described as what is basically and advanced gyrojet system, with the bolt being propelled by a small charge to get it out of the gun before it's main rocket motor fires off. I still think that like gyrojets, they are more powerful at longer ranges due to higher veolocity but in either case the standard bolt also has an explosive charge (set to explode after penetration).

Missiles- These I would greatly like to know more about, everything I have read would put them as Generation II shaped charges, which are significantly less powerful than current modern generation III copper lined linear shaped charges. but I need more info.

If I have missed anything and I know I have, feel free to post.

You asked for sources, but I've already cited many. Here are page numbers of a selection of the sources I have cited thus far (out of materials I currently have with me):

Deathwatch, page 146-147: They are noted to be temperamental and requiring lots of maintenance, but no mention of the supposed weakness. Their stats do not have the supposed weakness.

Dark Heresy, pages 130, 133-134: They are noted to be expensive, temperamental, somewhat difficult to manufacture and requiring lots of maintenance, but no mention of the supposed weakness. Their stats do not have the supposed weakness.

Dark Heresy - The Inquisitor's Handbook, pages 109, 120, 171, 177, 187: Across the numerable examples of Bolt Weapons across the galaxy, not one is mentioned to have the supposed weakness. Their stats do not reflect the supposed weakness.

Dawn of War 2: Across the various wargears in the game, not one mentions the supposed weakness. The effectiveness of Bolt weapons is effected by range the same as everything else-- more damage is done when the unit is closer for all kinds of bolt weapons.

Codex: Space Marines, pages 97-98, 144: No mention of the supposed weakness in any examples of bolt weapons. The stats do not reflect the supposed weakness.


Bolt weapons do not have the supposed weakness you accused them of having (ineffectiveness at close range). They never have. Do not attempt to talk about it supposedly "violating the laws of physics", because all that the bolter shell (note, it is specifically a shell, and they produce spent shell casings as noted by Dark Heresy) would need to do in order to counteract the supposed weakness is by simply having enough propellant to make the shell lethal at close range.

You are the one claiming the weakness exists. You must prove it. I do not have to disprove the supposed weakness-- proving a negative is impossible-- but I cited many sources that have a complete and utter lack of the supposed weakness.

I never said inneffective just less powerful there is a difference and all of those sources just mention the gyroject like system which implies that I am correct. It doesn't have to state it explicitly if it identifies it as a rocket, then it's automatically understood that at a longer range it's going to be stronger.

I mean If it hit you with a baseball and then hit you with another baseball at a quarter less of the weight and twice the velocity the higher velocity one is going to hurt more. That's just how bolts work.

I'm still waiting for you to cite an actual source.

Being less powerful at close range is a weakness. This supposed weakness has yet to be proven to exist. I have cited many canon examples produced by Games Workshop or in coordination with Games Workshop (GW's own writers worked on FFG's Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch series) where this supposed weakness does not exist. You have yet to cite any example outside of fan-made material to prove that it does.

Thus far, you are losing this argument, and have been for a while.

as soon as I can find a copy of Warhammer 40k: wargear I will. It's a commonly held staple of the community, that your sources don't mention this weakness does not proove your point either as none of them go into detail about the weapons themselve, but only mention them on a basic operating procedure. After all autoguns are less powerful at long ranges you don't see that mentioned anywhere in the fluff because it's supposed to be understood, just as with your sources it's supposed to be understood that as they accelerate through their flight path they are more powerful at longer ranges than they are up close. In any case it's too complicated of a mechanic to add to a table top game, and one I don't think relic would catch as they aren't all fluff buffs. so that it isn't represented isn't a big deal. Certain editions don't even refer to bolters as firing rockets they just call them bolts. so of course they're not going to go into detail about their effectiveness at different ranges.

Just look at the cartridge


They have very little initial charge leaving most of the energy of the round in the rocket.

gendoikari87 wrote:that your sources don't mention this weakness does not proove your point

I don't need to prove my point. I just need to watch as you fail to prove yours.

The onus is on you to prove that the supposed weakness exists.

c-c-c-c-ombo breaker. (sorry, 1 on 1 conversations isn't my thing)

Also, gendoikar, U mad? Still waiting for your proof (or lack there-of)

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:c-c-c-c-ombo breaker. (sorry, 1 on 1 conversations isn't my thing)

Also, gendoikar, U mad? Still waiting for your proof (or lack there-of)

it's not a lack there of, anyone with half a brain can figure this out, I just don't have any books near me so I have to go download them.

Hmm, you mean anyone with half a brain can ignore Melissia's sources?

Sorry gendoikari87, no mention of bolt weapons being less effective at close range in the 2e wargear book. Checked through the bolt pistol, boltgun, stormbolter and heavy bolter sections to see if i could find a mention. I had a fun time reading the rest of the book after that, it is pretty good, especially 90 wound assault cannons. So thanks for giving me a reason to dig it out of my "obsolete" draw.

As much as it is worth i think that bolt weapons may have slightly less penetration power at short range, ie. before the rocket motor fires. This would only really become noticeable with contact shots and even then would be negligable if sufficient initial propellant was used.

In all the sources they state that the initial charge is small, just enough to get the bolt out of the barrel and ignite the main rocket motor. It does not take a genious to plot out the kinetic energy of the round, at the muzzel it's low and increases with time as the rocket motor accelerates it, increasing the kinetic energy until the rocket motor is exhausted at which point the kinetic energy goes down. Just because they don't explicitly state this doesn't mean thats how they work, they already call them rockets, and anyone with even half a brain can acknowledge that something going faster is going to hurt more, and that a rocket goes faster the farther it travels. What mellissa is essentially saying is that as the bolt goes faster, the energy is less and is less powerful. She's reading into something that isn't there, and is understood by the community and really almost 90% of the people on earth that's why they don't put it in the readings, and it's not something they want to complicate the game systems with.

In essence they have prooven me right they just refuse to see it because it does not explicitly state something that is too much of a no brainer to write down. They averaged the power of the bolter at both extremes as the main profile for the weapon to make it simple. Thats it and as soon as I find a source that explicitly states this I'll show it but untill then if they dont' pull out someting that says bolts aren't mini rockets they are wrong on every level and anyone who thinks for two seconds can tell i'm right.

You are getting absurdly close to flaming, gendoikari. If you want to argue with logic rather than sources (because you do not have sources, and I propose that is fine because they do not exist anyway), we can do so. Consider this argument:

Just because you are unwilling to believe in the idea that bolters are not exact replicas of gyrojet weapons in function does not mean that you are right. Just because the bolter shell (and it is a shell, not a bullet, or a round, or whatever) uses a rocket propulsion at one point does not mean that this is all that it uses, or that its other aspects are minimized.

Rather, I compare a bolter's initial stage of firing to a shotgun firing a shotgun shell. The boltgun fires in much the same way as firing a shotgun slug. The shell casing is ejected (yes, boltguns do have shell casings, as noted in my previous citations) after firing, and the shell itself has terminal velocity before exiting the barrel. This also accounts for the gun's recoil. An instant (speaking of a very small fraction of a second, far too fast for the human mind to notice) after the bolter shell leaves the barrel of the weapon, it ignites its rocket, continuing to its target. An instant (again, very small fraction of a second) after piercing the target, the shell explodes, primarily intending to cause damage through the concussive force of the explosion rather than through shrapnel in most (but not all) bolter shell designs.

With all of this in mind, there is no logical reason why a bolter shell MUST move slower (And thus have less penetrating power) at short range than it does at long range.

Because there is no logical argument for your position, the onus remains on you to prove that there is canon to support it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:In all the sources

Cite your sources. Give direct quotations.

Logic doesn't work for warhammer. Why don't we argue about how big bolter rounds are, yet so many fit in those small clips, when logically it doesn't work.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Melissia, e-highfive

With all of this in mind, there is no logical reason why a bolter shell MUST move slower (And thus have less penetrating power) at short range than it does at long range.

..... it's a rocket.

The miniatures are not made to scale, so they wouldn't make sense even if they didn't have .75 cal shells.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:..... it's a rocket.

Irrelevant, as I explained above.

Melissia wrote:The miniatures are not made to scale, so they wouldn't make sense even if they didn't have .75 cal shells.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:..... it's a rocket.

Irrelevant, as I explained above.

I mean in all the pictures, such as the 4th (I think) Sm codex in that shows the bolter, and a creppy monk-rat thing pouring oil on it.
Those bolts would fit like, 5 to a mag going by those pictures.

Its all irrelevant anyway.

I think you're WAY overestimating the size of bolter shells. .75 cal is 3/4ths of an inch in diameter-- about 19.05 milimeters thick. Keep in mind that Space Marines are well over eight feet tall when in power armor, and then look at the clips again. Their size is deceptive.

Melissia wrote:The miniatures are not made to scale, so they wouldn't make sense even if they didn't have .75 cal shells.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:..... it's a rocket.

Irrelevant, as I explained above.

how is it irrelevant, if you have some initial velocity and accelerate you have a higher kinetic energy, it takes time to accelerate and therefore distance therefore it has higher kinetic energy at longer distances.

So no its other aspects are not minimized the rocket adds kinetic energy per unit time so the longer the bolt is in the air the more energy it has. and until I can download some sources for you I'm going to quit arguing. I can see your are ignoring everything i have to say.

I think you're WAY overestimating the size of bolter shells. .75 cal is 3/4ths of an inch in diameter-- about 19.05 milimeters thick.

Different sources State different sizes but most stick to .75/1.25 for bolters and heavy bolters, and some say .5 and .75 just depends on where you read, wargear 2nd ed uses .75 for the standard bolter, most every where else its .50

That is when the size is given, most of the time it's not.

There are so many unexplained point on bolter function that it is almost impossible to work out exactly how they work. What if the rocket propellant burns almost instantly, giving a short impulse of thrust? What if the terminal velocity of the shell is reached almost instantly, making the velocity of the projectile a near constant. What if they are constucted from some super dense cookie dough, baking in mid flight and delivering cokkie goodness to your enemies?

Ok so the last point may have been stretching it but trying to analyse things such as material engineering and chemical science from either short paragraphs of fluff or extrapolating knowledge from 38000 years previously is just doomed to misunderstanding.

I doubt that they function exactly as gyrojets do in real life. Can you not stop a gyrojet by putting a gloved hand over the barrel? Would seem a bit off to stop the foremost infantry weapon of the imperium by sticking your finger in it.

gendoikari87, it seems more as though you're trying to convince yourself of something untrue.

Why don't you just drop the whole argument now, as you're getting nowhere and just proving yourself more and more wrong.

gendoikari87 wrote:how is it irrelevant

Because it is not just a rocket.

Also, I present to you the concept of Terminal Velocity. To quote Wikipedia:

In fluid dynamics an object is moving at its terminal velocity if its speed is constant due to the restraining force exerted by the air, water or other fluid through which it is moving.

Just because force is exerted upon an object does not mean that it will accelerate. You mentioned physics earlier, but any physics class beyond high school level would have taught these kinds of concepts.

Just because force is exerted upon an object does not mean that it will accelerate. You mentioned physics earlier, but any physics class beyond high school level would have taught these kinds of concepts.

I AM a physics major, Terminal velocity is mostly a term used for free fall objects, it's when the force of air resistance as a quadratic term of the velocity equals the force on the object (this is normally the force due to gravity when most people talk about terminal velocity) and with a rocket engine this velocity is much much higher due to the much greater force on the object so just because it's reached the "terminal Velocity" does not mean it stops accelerating, it just means that if gravity is the only force acting on the object it will stop accelerating. Supersonic bullets fired from a gun are initially at a much higher velocity than their terminal of around 60-200mph but the force of air resistance slows them down, a rocket overcomes this force of air resistance accelerating them to higher speeds, and IF like the poster above said the rocket fires in such a short time interval it's near instantaneous there would be no advantage over a solid projectile weapon.

gendoikari87 wrote:"terminal Velocity" does not mean it stops accelerating, it just means that if gravity is the only force acting on the object it will stop accelerating.

I'm sorry? I studied Physics at university and I thought that the definition of terminal velocity was when the force of drag equals the force of thrust and so constant velocity is reached.

Copy-paste from the Guardsem/Rhino thread; as it is more on topic here anyways:

While it is true that Bolt's gain velocity after leaving the barrel, they are far more lethal than a 9mm at, and shortly after the barrel. Melissa is correct they are Not exactly gyro-jets; they are far superior to them, but fire in nearly the same manner(the first stage, the charge in the casing gives them a lethal velocity upon exiting the barrel and can penetrate most things with that velocity alone)

The benefit to the gyro-jet round format(remember they still do not = gyro-jet rounds) to them is that they do not lose any of that velocity as the bullet travels "downrange" (in fact it picks up extra velocity) this does more to long range accuracy than it does to penetrative power however(a problem I have always had with this is the fluff =/= the rules with such a short range given to the bolter profile).

And Melissa is right there is no weakness to bolts at close range, they are extremely lethal.

As to some of the other comparisons:
Lasguns and autoguns are comparable to 7.62mm NATO rounds; figure on them being a more advanced version of an AK(better accuracy, and less kick with the autoguns, no kick with the Las).

Las and Auto Pistols do just as much damage as the rifles but do so with less range(due to barrel length) and a lower fire rate.

Heavy Stubbers are flat-out HMGs not at all like the MG 42, but the BMG.50 and other HMGs (the Base vehicle mounted model even looks exactly like the browning M2 HMG, which fires a .50 bmg round).

Autocannons are spot on.

Terminal Velocity does not just apply to freefall. It, and the concepts that represent and cause it, apply to any type of physics that does not take place in a vacuum. Air resistance slows down objects, this is why bullets are slowed down as time goes on. Bolters do not have this weakness as the rocket propellant assists them in maintaining speed, but that does not mean resistance suddenly ceases to exsist. Nor does having a second stage where they are propelled as a rocket mean that bolter shells exit the barrel at speeds less than conventional bullets.

gendoikari87 wrote:physicsphysicyphysics

Objects in free-fall have force applied to them by gravity. When the addition of force does not increase speed, it reaches terminal velocity.

Is there a reason why the terminal velocity is impossible for the bolt round to reach before the jet turns on?

I'm sorry? I studied Physics at university and I thought that the definition of terminal velocity was when the force of drag equals the force of thrust and so constant velocity is reached.

In general it's used for free fall, not specifically but it's what MOST people refer to when they say free fall. But if your already going faster than the "terminal" velocity your velocity is not constant, so yes you were apparantly taught wrong, because then you slow down to that terminal velocity.

And Melissa is right there is no weakness to bolts at close range, they are extremely lethal.

and yet still more lethal at longer ranges so my point is still valid. I bow out as I'm tired of explaing basic tenants of physics. Good night.

gendoikari87 wrote:I mean If it hit you with a baseball and then hit you with another baseball at a quarter less of the weight and twice the velocity the higher velocity one is going to hurt more. That's just how bolts work.

No, that is not how bolts work. Bolts are explosive rounds. This means that even if you manage to back up your claim that they speed up significantly as they fly, the main method of inflicting damage will remain of constant effectiveness.

For a supposed physics major, then you don't appear to know much about physics...

Terminal velocity DOES NOT merely refer to freefall. Quit mentioning freefall, it is irrelevant.

Melissia wrote:For a supposed physics major, then you don't appear to know much about physics...

Terminal velocity DOES NOT merely refer to freefall. Quit mentioning freefall, it is irrelevant.

I said in most cases it refers to free fall not everything and not all the time. In either case

A. the Explosive does not go off untill after penetration, so this is irrelevant unless you can find sources that state they go off on impact in which case the velocity of the round will be largly irrelevant.

B. if the charge is enough to propell it to lethal speeds with so little room for the charge, then A. the rocket propellant is less powerful and they would bebefit more by having a higher ratio of initial charge to rocket propellan or B. the Rocket propellant has a higher energy density and it would benefit them to replace all of the charge with the rocket propellant.

There's no indication in the fluff that a bolter shell takes a long time to get up to speed, so most likely the propellant fires quickly enough that acceleration time is not significant. Back in 1st edition when weapons had range modifiers, bolters actually got a +1 to hit at short range like most basic weapons, and bolt pistols got a +2 to hit at short range like most pistol weapons, so there's no rule support for bolters being weak at short range even back when rules would have accounted for that.

Melissia wrote:I think you're WAY overestimating the size of bolter shells. .75 cal is 3/4ths of an inch in diameter-- about 19.05 milimeters thick. Keep in mind that Space Marines are well over eight feet tall when in power armor, and then look at the clips again. Their size is deceptive.

In all of the pictures a bolter shell is shown to be shaped like a pistol cartridge, with a 'bullet' (maybe 'warhead' is more appropriate) and a casing with propellant that is about the same diameter as the bullet/warhead, not heavily tapered like a rifle shell. A shotgun shell also holds to a cylinder shape, although even slugs usually have a paper or plastic casing around the projectile. A 12-gauge shotgun is about .73 caliber, so a bolter barrel is about the size of a regular shotgun, and its ammunition is about the size of a shotgun shell. Bolters as described are not as big and unweildy as some people think they are, they're a surprisingly reasonable weapon for something thought up by a bunch of guys who likely know zip about firearms.

Here's a pic I found of a short-barreled shotgun with a 10-round magazine, it's something a normal human can manipulate pretty easily. Scale up the magazine and gun body to fit in with a 8-foot armored giant, and you can easily make it a 2-column magazine and 1.5x as long to contain 30 rounds. This is the first pic I've tried uploading, so hopefully it works.

Actually it's mostly Astartes bolters which are big and unwieldy. Without their superhuman strength, they'd not be able to fire them accurately.

Human bolters are much better designed.

gendoikari87 wrote:In general it's used for free fall, not specifically but it's what MOST people refer to when they say free fall. But if your already going faster than the "terminal" velocity your velocity is not constant, so yes you were apparantly taught wrong, because then you slow down to that terminal velocity.

In general the concept may be introduced when discussing falling objects but in this case we are using it to work out the top speed of projectiles. Wether or not you are travelling faster or slower than your terminal velocity is irrellevant as you will still either speed up or slow down until the forces balance anyway, at which point the terminal velocity is reached. The concept that i was taught wrong is laughable, although if you had said that i had misunderstood i would be far less offended and would have reconsidered my position. Leading universities always teach you rubbish eh? Although in the case of classical physics it is all wrong anyway, if we were to use the most accurate physics then it is all wrong by billionths of a percent due to relativity anyway.

I did not mean to offend mearly point out an inaccuracy for a specific case (because I misread what you said), I meant it mostly as comical.

Although in the case of classical physics it is all wrong anyway, if we were to use the most accurate physics then it is all wrong by billionths of a percent due to relativity anyway.

Ironically I'm sitting here working on General relativity. The particular case of proper time verses earth frame time for a satelite.

Don't sweat it, offended was probably too strong a word anyway. Been about three years since i did this stuff academically. Time really can be annoying in those tasks, all four dimensional vectors and Lorentz transformations. General relativity is even more bizarre. I think that the idea "If you are not confused when you first hear it, then you haven't understood it" is sound advice.

I remember bill phillips telling us that when he came to give a guest lecture to our quantum class a few weeks ago( as well as a lecture to our General relativity class). I was lucky enough to be taking both classes, and see both lectures. In any case I should count myself lucky that our GR class uses the wheeler arcibald book that reduces the math of General down to derivatives, integrals and simple algebra.

Bill Phillips the Nobel prize winner? That sounds interesting. Did a bit of laser cooling work at uni, really fun concept. Imagine a Bose-Einstein condensate gun for your troops, wonder what its stats would be...

Anyway, on topic and as lasers came up anyway, i always wondered how the smeg lasguns had recoil. I don't know if i just imagined this but they should not, correct? Other than the miniscule amount because of photon mass that is.

I don't know if i just imagined this but they should not, correct?

well the photon DOES have some momentum, and so it DOES have recoil... problem is to produce the force of a gram, the beam needs to be like 100000 mega watts. I've done the calculations before but if you actually do the math you get more bang for the buck out of kinetic energy penetrators, just simply due to the high specific heat of carbon and water. Now for a sniper rifle... I might go for that laser but as a general rule projectiles trump lasers for energy transfer into damage to the opponent, lasers tend to cauterize, and don't have the hydrostatic shock of bullets. but then again theres no supply train for a rechargable battery pack.

Bill Phillips the Nobel prize winner? That sounds interesting. Did a bit of laser cooling work at uni, really fun concept.

You have actually done some laser cooling? That's amazing, what's your setup like? He explained the basics to us and I was like, wow that is really really simple and brilliant, in a word, elegant. Then he started telling us about his funnel design and i was like... okay, I now know why this guy got the nobel prize. At the moment all I'm doing is working on the laws of internal ballistics, mostly the second law of thermodynamic with a non uniform powder burn rate, and the double integral of time and volume is kinda befuddling me.

Ack, that did sound like i did some experimental laser cooling didn't it? I'm not that cool (pun intended), just meant that i had covered the theoretical side of it. I always found that theory was more interesting anyway, wish i had of done a masters in theoretical physics instead of just normal physics with lab work. Something always ended up throwing my experiments off a bit, like someone walking into my table while i took lunch and blowing a mornings work out the window.

I just can't get the idea of six lasguns firing at a carnifex out of my head. I know it wouldn't work on such large amounts of matter, but i wonder what would happen to super cold carnifex molecules...

I just can't get the idea of six lasguns firing at a carnifex out of my head. I know it wouldn't work on such large amounts of matter, but i wonder what would happen to super cold carnifex molecules...

It wouldn't work, in 40k all lasers heat stuff up no matter of respective initial velocity vectors. Aparantly the absorption spectrum in 40k is continuous and not discrete.

Must be the warp. Or tyranids ate it. Or a wizard did it...

Wizard, of course it was Tim. as he alone can prevent the ultraviolet catastrophe in a world of continuous spectrum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as a side note I found a pic of something I made years and years ago in high school it was basically a high initial impulse bolter shell that used a small rocket to overcome air resistance and provide additional spin. Looking at it now, it's a horribly flawed design, but I was very young then.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Most 40k stuff doesn't work beyond IT'S MAGIC! anyway. The calibers are ridiculous, designs poor, armor filled with flaws/bullet traps/etc. vehicles lack basic suspenision (or in rhinos any realistic place for an engine), etc. And it would all be kinda of pointless because with guiant spaceships with all their gee-whizzery, they could annihilate whole armies from space anyway.

It's just a neat excuse to push around guys in armor firing big guns at aliens and monsters in space. PEW PEW!

Tau railguns are already have prototypes. Basically it fires fridge sized solid rounds many times the speed of sound.

Bolters are scream-powered.

Nay, Noise Marine weaponry is scream powered ;-)

I'd say this.
Bolt weaponry can't be really described as a true Gyrojet weapon since we have sources which give them recoil and those that don't give.
After looking at the sources and comparing them with each other I'd say that Bolter are really some bastard weapons.
Know that loud thing,in Inquisition Wars Draco's Bolter is said to be created to be loud.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Nobody wrote:Tau railguns are already have prototypes. Basically it fires fridge sized solid rounds many times the speed of sound.

Imperium also has Railguns on ships.

As for the Lasguns we have 19 Megathule(I assume that Megathule is corruption of Megajoule) source and most of other sources give them level of firepower near that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plasma pistol fully cremates a Human in one novels.That gives them 400 megajoules(the amount of energy required for cremating human body).
Lascannons range from triple digit megajoules to single digit gigajoules.
In Caves of Ice a meltagun "instantly flashes" a dozen cubic metres of ice which gives it some 32 gigajoules.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Autocannons- just that 20-30mm autocannons (though the OLD OLD OLD OLD wargear book says they are basically modern tank cannons, most of the new stuff puts them at around the level of a high end bushmaster)

Most of this thread was about bolters, but I wanted to take exception with this.

Don't presume we have any kind of technology today that mimics 40k technology just because it uses the same name.

40k autocannons use materials and physics not obtainable in the real world, just like most of everything else in 40k.

That 20-30mm autocannon would be more akin to a heavy bolter in terms of power, since they'd be unlikely to damage a Rhino, and unable to damage anything tougher.

@gendoikari87: Actual science has no place in these discussions as any attempts to reproduce most of the stated effects per the warhammer fluff using scientific means is impossible.

Take the bolter arguement for example. In Mellissia's quotes it is assumed that the bolter craps out shots that are already at terminal velocity as soon as they leave the barrel - thus no difference in damage at long range or short. I know nothing about gyrojets as a technology - but from what I do know about balistics - the shell diagram you showed doesn't suggest that the stated mode of operation is achievable using 21st century conventional means - and needs some sort of 41st millenium voodoo to function.

The funny thing about going to the fluff for support is that the fluff itself is contradictory. Those who lean entirely on the fluff for their support are keen to dismiss any fluff damaging to their cause...

Take Ivan's lasgun numbers. Fluff adherents will keep posting the quotes which show damage output and ignore the fact that:

1. Megajoule output numbers are moving towards the range of modern tank-level weapons.
2. Lasguns are noted in fluff to be able to be recharged in a fire.
3. Reputed to be a plasma weapon, they need ammunition, one might infer that since the fire recharge is stated to work (and presumably doesn't replenish whatever the plasma is), that they are in fact some sort of high tech voodoo weapon.

At the same time they'll challenge you to "prove" that the numbers should be lower... It is this "moving the goalposts" mentaility that makes any sort of rationalization of the 40k fluff impossible.

@keezus
Do you think that Lasguns are some kind of low-powered plasma weapons,I mean they have recoil?
I've always wished that GW finnaly makes some coherent cannon policy like in SW so that we can put end to these debates.

Are you guys REALLY complaining about the lack of a source that has information of a fictional weapon?

LordTyphus wrote:Are you guys REALLY complaining about the lack of a source that has information of a fictional weapon?

Yeah we do on many forums.
Go to the SpaceBattles.com or to StarDestroyer.net.
They'll give you all the info.

Bolt weaponry can't be really described as a true Gyrojet weapon since we have sources which give them recoil and those that don't give.
After looking at the sources and comparing them with each other I'd say that Bolter are really some bastard weapons.
Know that loud thing,in Inquisition Wars Draco's Bolter is said to be created to be loud.

well all we really know is that they have a lethal level of velocity at muzzel, so it's more than likely a hybrid system but that still means they are more dangerous at long range than at short, still making my point valid. But the main problem is accuraccy, If I didn't know any better i'd say bolts are guided. but I have no source stating this...

Most of this thread was about bolters, but I wanted to take exception with this.

Don't presume we have any kind of technology today that mimics 40k technology just because it uses the same name.

40k autocannons use materials and physics not obtainable in the real world, just like most of everything else in 40k.

That 20-30mm autocannon would be more akin to a heavy bolter in terms of power, since they'd be unlikely to damage a Rhino, and unable to damage anything tougher.

Actually that's not true, the IG codex specifically draws comparisons to modern day autocannons of the same calibers. A lot of other sources including lexicannum give the same comparison. Only diffence is the imperium seems particularily fond of "high explosive shells"
EDIT: I thought the IG codex did I remember A codex comparing them to modern autocannons, at any rate they look just like a bushmaster. They're used in the same way and even used for anti-aircraft. Though the OLD sources state they're more like tank guns..... which isn't much different if you look at WWII tank guns and Modern autocannon rounds. 72-87mm versus 30mm High velocity. Course if they mean 120mm Rhinemattal shells they shells themeslves would behalf the size of a guardsman in length, but they're barely more than a hand over fist... which is the 30mm.

In Caves of Ice a meltagun "instantly flashes" a dozen cubic metres of ice which gives it some 32 gigajoules.

I have suspicions based on some descriptions that a melta gun is really just a positron beam weapon.


also has any body been able to find an in depth description of krak missiles for me? All I can find is hollow charge. Which leans to them being Gen II but Gen III is a LOT stronger i can't see why they don't use them... it's a copper liner for emperors sake....

gendoikari87 wrote: at any rate they look just like a bushmaster.

Looks like? That's hardly any kind of reasoning to hold in a logical debate where one weapon exists in our world and another exists in a world where it's made of unobtainium, firing nonsensoleum charged bullets, and operated by magic-voodoo spirits.

DarknessEternal wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote: at any rate they look just like a bushmaster.

Looks like? That's hardly any kind of reasoning to hold in a logical debate where one weapon exists in our world and another exists in a world where it's made of unobtainium, firing nonsensoleum charged bullets, and operated by magic-voodoo spirits.

True but even for 28mm heroic those shells are way too small to be tank shells. but they do fit into the 20-30mm range. Maybe 60mm WWII shells but that's a streach and a big one.

IvanTih wrote:I'd say this.
Bolt weaponry can't be really described as a true Gyrojet weapon since we have sources which give them recoil and those that don't give.
After looking at the sources and comparing them with each other I'd say that Bolter are really some bastard weapons.
Know that loud thing,in Inquisition Wars Draco's Bolter is said to be created to be loud.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Nobody wrote:Tau railguns are already have prototypes. Basically it fires fridge sized solid rounds many times the speed of sound.

Imperium also has Railguns on ships.

As for the Lasguns we have 19 Megathule(I assume that Megathule is corruption of Megajoule) source and most of other sources give them level of firepower near that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plasma pistol fully cremates a Human in one novels.That gives them 400 megajoules(the amount of energy required for cremating human body).
Lascannons range from triple digit megajoules to single digit gigajoules.
In Caves of Ice a meltagun "instantly flashes" a dozen cubic metres of ice which gives it some 32 gigajoules.

Yeah. I've read alot about that.
The Imperium does have Railguns. You just never hear about them as they are so simple. Anyone can speed a projectile to the speed of sound.

It doesn't take a whole lot to make a rail gun couple copper rods some wires and a nail..... now to make an effective one... a little bit more... to make one on the level the tau make them... a LOT more.

IvanTih wrote:@keezus
Do you think that Lasguns are some kind of low-powered plasma weapons,I mean they have recoil?

My pedestrian understanding of plasma based weaponry is that superheated material is placed in some sort of charged bubble and propelled along a magnetic coil towards the target at high velocity. Damage is done through heat transfer, with efficiency decreasing as heat is lost into the environment during travel. In the case of a lasgun, assuming it uses the same principle - the mass of the projectile is most likely negligible - as it would be firing a pellet of plasma (as opposed to an actual plasmagun which fires a more damaging blob of plasma). As such, I don't expect there would be much recoil. In the 40k vs. everything thread, I got beat down with a pile of posts indicating that las-weapons are low powered plasma weapons after assuming they were laser weapons... as recharging a plasma gun in a fire, low powered or not didn't seem to make much sense.

No matter which way one tries to rationalize the stated effect in the cited fluff - there is almost ALWAYS other fluff that contradicts it. IMHO, that's why trying to explain 40k effects using scientific rationalization is a fool's errand.

there is almost ALWAYS other fluff that contradicts it. IMHO, that's why trying to explain 40k effects using scientific rationalization is a fool's errand.

yeah but it's still fun to physicists and engineers.

as for lasguns, I've heard a million excuses for the recoil raging from being plasma to actually having a mechanism in it that emulates recoil as to not freak out the user who is used to firearms. Personally, though the fluff contradicts it, I like to think they are pure laser weapons. A laser will produce recoil, but to produce a gram (or rather the equivalent FORCE of recoil under earth gravity) of recoil you need something like 10,000 Kilowats. so any real recoil would mean that a lasgun is the end all be all of matter vaporizers!!!!

The only source I have ever seen that outlines a bolter shell as being potentially weaker at short range is in the Ultramarines novels.

At one point, the main character fires his bolt pistol at a Dark Eldar archon at extremely short range. Due to the distance (2-3 feet), the round does not have time to arm the explosive charge, and thus doesn't explode (it instead tears through his throat and passes through the back).

This would make it weaker against infantry (no explosion=less collateral damage), but better against armoured tagets (the round essentially becomes a high-powered slug)

This is the only example I have ever seen of a bolter being potentially weaker due to distance, and even then it still become more potent in a different aspect.

S_P

I think whether a bolt round is rocket powered or conventionally balistic is moot. When it strikes its target, whether its traveling 1mph or 300mph, the negative acceleration would set off the bolt shells explosive warhead. If equipped with a sufficiently powerful explosive velocity would have a less noticable impact on performance, less bullet more grenade.

Lets assume velocity does play a part in its penetrating capability. A false assumption being made by the OP is that the "gyrojet" rocket is a linear accelerating rocket. Unlike a gyrojet bullet, a bolt shell has a built in "brain" and sensors, that supposedly help aim. Anything that sophisticated would presumably have a range finder or something equivalent. It is not a stretch to imagine a bolt shell optimizing its acceleration based on range. Though this still might not be enough for shorter ranges. The answer to this lies in the fact that Bolt rounds are shown to have a casing, that gets ejected upon firing. This insists on Bolters shell being a 2-stage projectile, where the warhead is fired from the bolter with some sort of expulsion charge like a grenade, where the rocket motor kicks in as its leaving the barrel. The expulsion charge would likely be based on achieving the minimal acceleration to achieve some baseline performance for lethal velocity.

The sources state however that the charge is timed to explode after penetration. not on impact.

You guys are crazy eheh
It's sci-fi !!! Bolters fire their rocket-bullet-shell in any fraking way the Adeptus mechanicus like....
And come on ... they can start their "travel" with an explosion and then keep their speed using rocket-like propellent... justa as melissia said
... I don't see the difficulties...

All this physics jargon makes my head sore!

punkow wrote:You guys are crazy eheh
It's sci-fi !!! Bolters fire their rocket-bullet-shell in any fraking way the Adeptus mechanicus like....
And come on ... they can start their "travel" with an explosion and then keep their speed using rocket-like propellent... justa as melissia said
... I don't see the difficulties...

That would mean the rocket motor would be incredibly small and not to mention variable over the trajectory. given the design, it points against this.... I don't see the difficulties here... you start out at some initial velocity, light the rocket motor gain kinetic energy. This is very simple physics your arguing over people.

also to all the nay sayers out there you can't count on the explosive charge as they ONLY explode after penetration because theres no fluff saying otherwise -(see I can use your logic too melissa)

This whole arguement really needs to stop croping up. I could swear we had this same exact argument a month or two ago and we came to a logical conclusion.

If your going to talk about efficancy, the amount of energy transfered to a projectile that is fired through conventional meens, i.e a gun barrel, is much greater then the amount of energy transfered to a projectile via rocket. This is why armor peircing rounds are allows fired via the first method or a verison like it. An explosive round is the only type delivered by pure rocket propulsion.

six months ago you would have been correct and still are on a technical level. but we have recently unveiled a high speed anti-ballistic missile missile that kills with pure kinetic impact. But you are right about guns being more efficient...if they're designed right. Designed wrong they are a lot less efficient. In fact if I can pull it up I'll quote the efficiency term for "perfect" firearm that I derived a while back, which assumes total powder burn in a very short time interval.

Long story short efficiency is related to the initial and final volumes of the system. and also to the specific heat of the powder/air mixture and the number of molecules. Right now I'm working on non perfect systems where the burn rate has to be integrated with respect to temprature, time and pressure. Basically the second law of thermodynamics becomes a first order non homogeneous differential equation that CAN'T be solved by method of separation of variables.

Only read the first page of this thread but my input would be: I think autoguns have equiv of contempary AP rounds but are more innacurate than lasguns (Inquisitor rulebook IIRC).
As for bolters i remember once being told they incorparate some form of mass driver Tech in the Chamber (No source).
Finally @ Melissia you mention a Negative Outcome being impossible to prove, using this logic neither can a Positive be truelly proved. Metaphysically speaking the probability of a positive outcome being proved is merely many factors more likely. As for 'Rock-Hit' (preferable to 'Miss-ile' launchers IMO) i believe the rogue trader rulebook goes into a little detail on the components of a 'Crack' missile.

Yeah but like most it just says "hollow charge warhead" which implies Gen II, that would make gen III the equivalent of str 10 when it comes to vehicles. ... and also ap 1 but thats a given with the way Gen III works. but something about a modern shaped charge blasting land raiders like they were nothing just doesn't sit well with me.

gendoikari87 wrote:six months ago you would have been correct and still are on a technical level. but we have recently unveiled a high speed anti-ballistic missile missile that kills with pure kinetic impact. But you are right about guns being more efficient...if they're designed right. Designed wrong they are a lot less efficient. In fact if I can pull it up I'll quote the efficiency term for "perfect" firearm that I derived a while back, which assumes total powder burn in a very short time interval.

Long story short efficiency is related to the initial and final volumes of the system. and also to the specific heat of the powder/air mixture and the number of molecules. Right now I'm working on non perfect systems where the burn rate has to be integrated with respect to temprature, time and pressure. Basically the second law of thermodynamics becomes a first order non homogeneous differential equation that CAN'T be solved by method of separation of variables.

long sotry short, your having a discussion with people many of who are engineers and work in the defence industry. You know not what your talking about.

And how do you know? I assume you mean you are one yourself? If you are then you would know of the test I speak of. and also what is involved in the thermodynamics behind firearms. and YES I do know what i'm talking about because I'm trying to get INTO the defense industry. I have not yet finished however and do still have a lot more left to learn.

For starters there is a disproportiunate ammount of scientists and engineers that play minature wargames and post on this site(I think thats why the spelling is so bad most times).

As for what I do, I'm an engineer with the Army.

As for your the weapon system that your describing... Its launched like a missle, whether its launched from a ground based platform or mounted on an aircraft, its self propelled up until it reaches a certain distance from its target. The penatrator itself is then fired useing a shaped charge.

Now....guess what a shaped charge is.....Its the same principle as a gun or a cannon.

Even a poorly designed gun transfers energy more efficiantly then something self powered, there is much less energy lost to the enviroment in a gun or a cannon. The only thing that a missle has going for it, is its range.

Efficancy is a broad term, if your going to use it for anything you need to describe it. For example; with a missle system I could measure the efficancy of the propulsion system over its entire flight , and even then I could go deeper.

If you for some reason need to know what a bolt translates to in modern equivilant look up the US military HEAT round.

gendoikari87 wrote:The sources state however that the charge is timed to explode after penetration. not on impact.

Doesn't rule out what I was saying about an expulsion charge to boost its initial muzzle velocity. I actually design munitions for the government and while I wouldn't go too far in hypothesizing how a fictional weapon works, realize there are degrees of penetration and many different ways of achieving it. For example one non-balistic means of penetration is a small plasma jet that is ignited to preceade the projectile, thus allowing the projectile to rely less on balistic velocity. There are other means and bolter could even use some crazy thing yet to be imagined.

Point is "timed to explode after penetration" is so vague from a design stand point it says very little about the actual functionality. Penetration can describe just the fracturing of the surface material of a target, the indention and deformation into, or the partial or complete passage into the target. All are degrees of penetration, that from a stand point we'd have reason to initiate an explosive for different reasons at these different degrees of penetration to get different results.

Another problem with your concept of a bolter is that you treat it as though there is a single "type" of bolter ammo. That they'd all function identically up unto the point of the warhead. Both by fluff and rules there have been shown to be different types and the main advantage of a weapon like a bolter would be the ability to select the right shell and warhead for the right job.

For example... (I'm making this up)... the silenced bolter shells for example might have no expulsion charge at all only the quiet hiss of the miniature rocket, while an armor piercing shell might be more like a conventional bullet where all the power is transfered in the initial acceleration. The mechanics of the warhead could also vary. With so many ways to defeat armor the warhead could be a tandum warhead if its trying to rip completely through armor before detonating the primary charge, or if its trying to cause a failure of the armor itself it could detonate as it enters, or it could attempt to cause blunt force trauma by detonating on impact to the armored enemy.

Aka, mind telling me where you work out of?

As for your the weapon system that your describing... Its launched like a missle, whether its launched from a ground based platform or mounted on an aircraft, its self propelled up until it reaches a certain distance from its target. The penatrator itself is then fired useing a shaped charge.

That's not the one I was talking about. I think that's a recent american anti-ballsitic missile I'll have to look it up but I think the one I was looking at was israeli. It might have had a charge but it wasn't a shaped charge.

Now....guess what a shaped charge is.....Its the same principle as a gun or a cannon.

In the same way that bullets operate on the same principal of bullets. hell WE don't even full understand the interactions of the copper liner with the target. There are models that do a good approximation but recently me and one of my professors have been looking into unruh radiation as a source of part of the effects. Personally I just think it's go to do with surpassing the flow rate of the material.

Even a poorly designed gun transfers energy more efficiantly then something self powered, there is much less energy lost to the enviroment in a gun or a cannon. The only thing that a missle has going for it, is its range.

This is just not true. if you make the barrel of the gun something ridiculously short, it's going have a VERY small amount of energy transfered to it. A rocket will generally have about 50% (more with toroidal aerospikes under the right conditions).

Efficancy is a broad term, if your going to use it for anything you need to describe it. For example; with a missle system I could measure the efficancy of the propulsion system over its entire flight , and even then I could go deeper.

I suppose you are right, and in this case I mean Efficiency = energy transferred to the projectile/Total energy in the powder or rocket fule.

If you for some reason need to know what a bolt translates to in modern equivilant look up the US military HEAT round.

Um... no. Heat rounds are linear shaped charges that detonate away from the surface creating a jet of ... "molten" metal. I say it like that becuase it's NOT molten but the high speed shock wave rapidly deforms the copper (or steel) liner so that it acts like a liquid... and the metal it hits can also be modeled like a liquid. After penetration the jet dispurses into what my friend calls the Liquid metal shotgun. a horrible description of what's really going on but hey he's a pure physicist working on nano technology, I don't expect him to be up on all the latest military tech and how it works.

bolts on the other hand have a hardend adamantium tip to penetrate and explode AFTER penetration. In n way do they work like H.E.A.T.

Doesn't rule out what I was saying about an expulsion charge to boost its initial muzzle velocity

I wasn't, or at least didn't mean to I tend to come off as confrontational when I don't want to or mean to be. All I am saying is this. IF and yes that's an IF bolts rely on getting into the body cavity before explosion then they work for the most part on kinetic energy. If they are given some initial velocity by a main charge, yes they are lethal, but they are more lethal at longer ranges after they have accelerated to higher speeds. That's all. There are other factors that could change this but based PURELY on what the fluff says directly it indicates that they have a higher penetration at longer ranges depending on the ratio of rocket to initial charge. I mean we could spend days theorizing what ifs but we have so little to work on based on what GW says.

Catyrpelius wrote:If you for some reason need to know what a bolt translates to in modern equivilant look up the US military HEAT round.

I think a "bolt" weapon has a lot more going for it than that. A HEAT round is a decent enough example of the warhead, but propulsion and guidance not as much.

I think a bolter system is more of a cross between an XM25, M203's grenades, and some yet to be invented micro rocket system.

Some guided rocket or missle systems as they near their target can increase the rate their fuel burn to boost there velocity from a cruising speed to a less effiecent balistic speed. The main determinate for whether a rocket is designed to do that is what its intended target is and whether the fuel exploding will contribute better than the speed.

Catyrpelius wrote:Aka, mind telling me where you work out of?

Philadelphia metropolitan area, as a sub-contractor. Worked on everything from TOW, to XM25, to that modified Aegis used to shoot down a satelite.

Heres another though... bolts are large and explosively filled... think what a micro ARENA system would do to halt marines advance... granted against such small rockets ARENA isnt going to be as effective but it's 40k years in the future. I'm sure the tau could build something... and the idea of marines getting frustrated that they cant hit anything amuses me.

Im going to answer your post in numbers as I hate multi-quotes.

1 - If the Israeli's are useing it, it usually meens that it was a joint venture with the USA. Either way this is a moot point, anti missel laser systems are the way of the very very near future.

2 - Where are you getting a copper liner from?

3 - Any one that doesnt work for the defense industry always makes this mistake/generlization. Your assumeing that we only have one type of energetic, when in actuality we have many that suit different roles, and thats all that I can say...

Skipping 4 and 5 because they dont matter, but as for number 4, actual research supports my conclusion.

6 - I messed up alittle here, I got inturupted and lost my train of though.

gendoikari87 wrote:Heres another though... bolts are large and explosively filled... think what a micro ARENA system would do to halt marines advance... granted against such small rockets ARENA isnt going to be as effective but it's 40k years in the future. I'm sure the tau could build something... and the idea of marines getting frustrated that they cant hit anything amuses me.

Thats kinda what the XM25's airburst grenade does.

Aka, I'm out of Piccatinny doing large caliber munitions work atm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To exapand on my HEAT argument, I've always thought that bolt is a cross between a HEAT and a Sabot round. Make the Sabot mass reactive and there you go, it satisfies all of the arguments about bolt rounds.

Philadelphia metropolitan area, as a sub-contractor. Worked on everything from TOW, to XM25, to that modified Aegis used to shoot down a satelite.

You are my god.

and to respond to yours.

1. Amen. we do need to work on battery technology though.

2. Modern Shaped charges use a copper or steel liner for the hollow cavity. Basically they make use of the neumann (spelling) effect instead of the munroe effect.

3. huh? more forms of energies?

4. which is 4 your are referring to?

To exapand on my HEAT argument, I've always thought that bolt is a cross between a HEAT and a Sabot round. Make the Sabot mass reactive and there you go, it satisfies all of the arguments about bolt rounds.

That would make them quite beefy. also anybody every thought of making a shaped charge for the M203 for light vehicle work?

You guys are lucky I don't have the facilities to even do modelling at my school. I'd love to get into muntions design but I'm a bit better at internal mechanisms so I'll probably end up working for some small arms company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thats kinda what the XM25's airburst grenade does.

Isn't the XM25 hand held?

Aka, I'm out of Piccatinny doing large caliber munitions work atm.

Hiring by any chance?

1 - ATM you need a relativly low wattage laser to bring down a missle, you just need to explode the onboard fuel stoarge. I'm not sure that we have a battery powered laser yet, due to the size of modern lasers most of them are contained on some type of vehicle and just draw from their power.

2 - Gotcha, didnt understand where you were comeing from originally.

3 - An energetic is what we call a propellant, there are alot of them and each of them has differend burn characteristics, some burn much much faster then others. A faster burning energetic will allow you to empart the same velocity on a shell with a shorter barrell however it will lower efficancy of the overall system.

4 - Was in referance to the efficancy of a rocket. Rockets expend more energy, they have more forces to overcome then a balisstic projectile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piccatinny is always hiring, however its generally easier to get in as an engineer.

An energetic is what we call a propellant, there are alot of them and each of them has differend burn characteristics, some burn much much faster then others. A faster burning energetic will allow you to empart the same velocity on a shell with a shorter barrell however it will lower efficancy of the overall system.

Oh I know what you were talking about, Projectile size and propellant burn rate and all that goes in with the efficiency based on that. I was meaning that if you have a ridiculously short barrel it doesnt matter what kind of powder your using, it's going to be less efficient. ... like less than a half inch.. or better yet, no barrel just the cartridge open to air. with no cylinder to contain the energy at all you loose a lot.

Piccatinny is always hiring, however its generally easier to get in as an engineer.

But WILL they hire a physicist... at least if he writes a few papers on ballistics. I've got one almost done.

The burning propellant has to be contained, if it isnt contained then it isnt a gun.

The same could be said about a rocket if the bruning propellant isnt focused and directed.

Laser are the future for interception, mostly because of the inevitable developement of hypersonic missiles that will make alot of other interception methods too difficult to be worthwhile.

A cheap mans anti-missile system is just to try and blanket an area with high powered radio waves potenitally frying the circuits... obviously more and more we're forced to more robustly grounding the electronics to shield and protect them for that reason. Directed forms of this is how many aricraft protect themselves. It just always comes down to power.

The XM25 is a new squad level grenade launcher designed to shoot around and over walls. It has a sensor that reads its rotations through the Earths magnetic field to determine how far its traveled, it detonates itself once its traveled the distance the triple redundant laser and infared range finders communicate to it as it leaves the barrel. Upon detonating it directs flachettes and shrapnel unidirectionally towards the target on the opposite side of the imposing terrain.

Something like... Str 4 AP6 Rapid Fire, Ignore Cover

It has other modes and other grenade types, thats just kinda the primary selling point. Its a steal at a cost of about $15 a grenade.

Catyrpelius wrote:Aka, I'm out of Piccatinny doing large caliber munitions work atm.

Great, maybe you can yell at some ARDEC people for me...

Catyrpelius wrote:The burning propellant has to be contained, if it isnt contained then it isnt a gun.

The same could be said about a rocket if the bruning propellant isnt focused and directed.

Snub nose revolvers?... I hate those things.

A cheap mans anti-missile system is just to try and blanket an area with high powered radio waves potenitally frying the circuits... obviously more and more we're forced to more robustly grounding the electronics to shield and protect them for that reason. Directed forms of this is how many aricraft protect themselves. It just always comes down to power.

Doesn't TOW get around this by being wire guided or is the computer still in the warhead. I'm sorry I'm not an expert on electronics. most of my area of study is in shaped charges and firearms.

I can't really say, I'd have to wait for the next job announcment email. 90% of the people I work with are Engineers though.

Damn physics professors! they lied to me, told me I could get any job an engineer could with a physics degree.

aka_mythos wrote:

Catyrpelius wrote:Aka, I'm out of Piccatinny doing large caliber munitions work atm.

Great, maybe you can yell at some ARDEC people for me...

Just as long as I'm not yelling at myself.

I'd be interested to know how you guys solved the self destruct fuse problem so cheaply.

Comparisons cannot be made...at least not logically or accurately.

I hate my life I want to work for R&D... or at least testing in Aberdeen.

also $15 grenade rounds.... how?

gendoikari87 wrote:Damn physics professors! they lied to me, told me I could get any job an engineer could with a physics degree.

There is a major mentality difference between how a scientist thinks and how an engineer thinks. An engineer is a problem solver foremost.

Thats more a case of making sure there is more than enough rather than less than enough. Not so much with snub nosed revolvers but other small arms require above the pressure needed to fire the bullet to operate automatic or semi-automatically.

With a snubnosed you're just talking about the barrel being too short so propellant is wasted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:also $15 grenade rounds.... how?

Economy of scale first. Second its 25mm not 35mm or 40mm like other grenades. So it has a lower volume of explosives which are the pricier part of larger grenades, and its only 1/3 the size. You really need to think of it as a more accurate delayed dispersal range extended shotgun blast.

while we are on the subject and you guys are in the actual industry how do you solve the problem of the burn rate in the second law of thermodynamics. It's been bugging me for two months. does it actually turn out to be a partial differential equation?

No idea, thats not my area of expertise.

Because a factor of V is not disappearing for me like it should. ... or intuitively it shouldn't but the math isn't working out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Catyrpelius wrote:No idea, thats not my area of expertise.

But it's your job... isn't it...

I'm an engineer, we cheat. I have a burn rate chart on my wall...

but... those change with mass of the projectile or rather the volume change with respect to time... so for new designs those charts cant be that accurate... can they. I've heard munitions is mostly just a trial and error process that can't be true can it?

They are accuarate enough...

But is it really a trial and error process?

I'm going to edit this as the way I orginally wrote it made very little sense.

Yes and no, we usually can get into the ball park, but there is a point where good enough is good enough.

When something is designed for the US military it is effected by a number of things. Anything from a time constraint to a compatability constraint. All of those considerations need to be taken into account, so alot of times you end up with something that could be better but your ran into whatever constraints were placed upon the project.

The Army in general likes tried and true better then new and unproven, so more often then not we are just upgradeing an exsisting platform.

As far as trial and error goes. For things like fragmentation patterns of high explosive shells we have computer simulations that can approximate the fragmentation patterns on stuff, but they are never 100% correct. If I had a dollar for every military project that didn't work as intended I'd be a very rich man.

so have there been any advancements for defeating ARENA and TROPHY systems as of late. I proposed a few basic designs about a year ago in a paper I wrote... but never got it published. I probably should do that.

Edit: should note I mean Man portable systems not tanks with APFSDS.

The easiest way to defeat an Active Defense is with a dumb non-explosive round. There is very little that can protect anything from a modern Tungstin Sabot round.

yeah, but what about a man portable option against ARENA. Most Sabots are vehicle only... there is that onesteyr rifle though... freaking beast.

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn46-e.htm



Problem is the rounds are several thousands of dollars because the thing was canceled before it went to production. Just like the gyrojet. well at least there are a lot more gyrojets around. I think this was a one of a kind.

No idea, the military likes to keep certain things secret.

What Catyrphelius said. Those charts are based on collected data and would vary depending on propellent. If volume isn't changing as it should it sounds like soot or other by products of the reaction sticking around, or some unideal burn.

Found something you guys might like... the definition of SUPER overkill

I warn you, as real engineers you might experience some rage over such absurd overkill.

90% of cool pictures are blocked my the firewall at my work, I'll have to look at it later.

it's a triple linked M-134? system. Amazingly awesome but also epically wasteful.

I still think the GAU-8 (family) is the ultimate in rotary cannons. Seventy 30mm rounds per second... In few words... you've been juiced.

Bahhh forget about rotary cannons.

When the job really needs to get done use an M731

There's a reason you think that... because it is. It's also probably the most versatile weapon ever put on an aircraft. As a metter of fact Every time I hear about a new Imperial armor or codex I secretly pray they bring an incarnation of the GAU 8 into the game... but alas all we got was the punisher gatling cannon. it looks good but rules wise it doesn't do the Gau 8 justice.

GW will never give us GAU8, rolling 70 d6 a second is a bit tiring on the wrists.

Google the M1028 for the ultimate in anti-personnel rounds.

we seem to be forgetting an uber weapon.... OH the Grid Square Removal Service

Something for you to argue on.About 40k ships power.

Every weapon in the warship's arsenal was prepared and oriented down at the surface - torpedo arrays filled with warshots that could atomise whole continents, energy cannons capable of boiling off oceans, kinetic killers that could behead mountains through the brute force of their impacts.
- Nemesis, pg. 375

A bombardment had begun, and the people of Dagonet's capital feared it was the end of the world.

They knew so little of the reality of things. High above in orbit, it was only the warship Thanato that fired on the city, and even then it was not with the vessel's most powerful cannons. The people did not know that a fleet of craft were poised in silence around their sister ship, watchful and waiting. Had all the vessels of the Warmaster's flotilla unleashed their killpower, then indeed those fears would have come true; the planet's crust cracked, the continents sliced open. Perhaps those things would happen, soon enough - but for now it was sufficient for the Thanato to hurl inert kinetic kill-rods down through the atmosphere, the sky-splitting shriek of their passage climaxed by a lowing thunder as the warshots obliterated power stations, military compounds and the vast mansion-houses of the noble clans. From the ground it seemed like wanton destruction; from orbit, it was a shrewd and surgical pattern of attack.
- Nemesis, pgs. 417-418

meh, it's generally a bad idea to start nuking planets from orbit because life supporting planets are really few and far between. On that note. Tau capital ship railguns are said to accelerate large projectiles to .999c .... now the physicists out there are laughing their asses off because they know what kind of devestation something like that would cause. ... namely wiping out of an entire galaxy. probably more... a lot more... yeah the end of existance of all material things.

but as for ship power? That lies PURELY in the realm of techno-magic. It's not like krak missiles or autcannons where general comparisons can, at a streach, be made. Basically theres using real stuff as a basis and then theres completely making up bull. Warhammer is generally half and half. It usually only bugs me when they get the stuff that's SUPPOSED to be based on real stuff wrong.

This is going to be totally off topic now but I love how this has basically turned into something that I've been witnessing at my work for years.

Engineers (I am one myself although not in the field that is being discussed here) are always more practical, and from my own experience we love it when some youngster comes along with a degree, fresh from Uni, and then tries to tell us how to improve our equipment or designs something based around theory and equations. Why do we love it - because simply put, 99% of the time we can prove them wrong.

Theoretical discussion is nothing when compared to real world experience. As per Catyrpelius mentioning about using a chart for information above. Calculated accuracy is all well and good, but most of the time a chart is all you need. Zeus book anyone?

well there is no substitute for real world experience I just haven't had a chance to get any yet. That being said you can't just rely on experience all the time. Some times you do have to revert back to the equations to gain insight. A fundemental understanding of the principals might not beat experience, but if you understand what's going on, on a fundemental level it will make gaining experience easier. That goes for both physicists and engineers.

During the summer ARDEC runs a Internship program, bepending on where in the US you live it might be worth looking in to.

Perkustin wrote:Finally @ Melissia you mention a Negative Outcome being impossible to prove, using this logic neither can a Positive be truelly proved.

I do believe TVTropes has something on this subject.

No, it's the positive that is the only thing able to be proved. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult up to and including impossible depending on the subject. Is it possible, for example, to prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist? No, because it could just be we haven't seen it yet. Is it possible to prove the Loch Ness Monster does exist? Yes, by actually providing a specimen of said monster.


As for practical experience, that's good and all, but until you actually obtain (through making it, or some other fashion) a true and real bolter shell and then fire it while measuring its trajectory, speed, etc, you can't really claim to have any with bolter shells...

Sweet I'll look into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
you can't poove a negative... not exactly prooving a negative but similiar:



you proove a negative by prooving it can't happen like a particle existing outside of an infinite square well. It can't because it... well it can't by the bound state conditions. or rather the schrodinger equation says "NO" to an infinite potential.

Basically this is also how you proove the lock ness monster does not exist by showing that there is not enough food in the lake to sustain a creature of that size without devastating the ecosystem.

What happens if the Loch Ness Monster is a reptile, then it could be argued that since the average temperature of the late is low, then the monsters metabolism is also low.

gendoikari87 wrote:Basically this is also how you proove the lock ness monster does not exist by showing that there is not enough food in the lake to sustain a creature of that size without devastating the ecosystem.

The scientific method is: State hypothesis, attempt to disprove hypothesis. We tried that in the other silly 40k threads. Pretty much any attempts to debunk a desired calculation result using the scientific method is rebuffed by: "super advanced technology has surpassed your suggested limitation" and failing that, the ultimate fallback position of: "40k ignores the laws of physics". With brilliant arguements like that, it is impossible to gain any traction. Using the same arguements vs your Loch Ness monster "proof", your arguement is clearly INVALID as we know nothing about the metabolism of the Loch Ness monster, nor do we know what it eats. For all we know, it may eat rocks for nutrition.

Catyrpelius wrote:What happens if the Loch Ness Monster is a reptile, then it could be argued that since the average temperature of the late is low, then the monsters metabolism is also low.

Judging by the descriptions it Is a reptile, but he scientists who did these calculations were including that in there. The problem isn't the amount of food the loch ness monster would eat but rather the amount of food available isn't that much to support a breeding population. This is much different from disproving Sasquatch however ... who can't really be proven to not exist based environmental conditions. Sasquatch takes more the form of the pink elephant out in the oort nebula ... granted the elephant can't be alive.

also you can't assume ALL reptiles are cold blooded. Brids are tought to have decended from dinosaurs, and birds are warm blooded. So it's thought that some dinosaurs were warm blooded.

gendoikari87 wrote:well there is no substitute for real world experience I just haven't had a chance to get any yet. That being said you can't just rely on experience all the time. Some times you do have to revert back to the equations to gain insight. A fundemental understanding of the principals might not beat experience, but if you understand what's going on, on a fundemental level it will make gaining experience easier. That goes for both physicists and engineers.

Oh I totally agree. Without fundamental knowledge in our fields we'd never become engineers in the first place There's definitely place for both scientists and practically based engineers in this world, we'd be pretty stuck if it was just one or the other.

gendoikari87 wrote:you can't prove a negative...

You can prove a negative in the same way you prove a positive. Positive and negative are relativistic terms based on a point of reference. Since you can freely define your point of reference you can freely define what is positive or negative.

These types of statements are logic traps based on forcefully false logic. It is like when someone argues "0" is not a number, because it doesn't represent a count, that it is an absences of number, that "nothing" can not be a mathematical object. Just like the above its a false assertion based on flawed logic.

To prove non-existence insists on non-action. Buddhists do it all the time. It is a matter of defining the universe in a way that allows one to cancel out the inconsequential. I do not think, therefore I am not.

Yeah, and that reasoning is stupid.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, is still there.

As an example, you may not believe I'm about to punch you in the face, but when that blow lands, you've still been punched in the face. Simply saying "I do not think/believe, therefor I do not exist" is, itself, a logical trap and very unsound.

Nope Melissia, no matter how much it bothers you, your just a figment of our collective imaginations.

Well yes, but I'm such a strong figment that I just don't ever go away no matter how much some people want me to.

Let's not get crazy now!

Bahhh why would we want you to go away? Your so much fun!

aka_mythos wrote: I do not think, therefore I am not.

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum?

Melissia wrote:Yeah, and that reasoning is stupid....

Allegory of the cave, etc.

keezus wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Basically this is also how you proove the lock ness monster does not exist by showing that there is not enough food in the lake to sustain a creature of that size without devastating the ecosystem.

The scientific method is: State hypothesis, attempt to disprove hypothesis. We tried that in the other silly 40k threads. Pretty much any attempts to debunk a desired calculation result using the scientific method is rebuffed by: "super advanced technology has surpassed your suggested limitation" and failing that, the ultimate fallback position of: "40k ignores the laws of physics". With brilliant arguements like that, it is impossible to gain any traction. Using the same arguements vs your Loch Ness monster "proof", your arguement is clearly INVALID as we know nothing about the metabolism of the Loch Ness monster, nor do we know what it eats. For all we know, it may eat rocks for nutrition.

You have a very VERY good point. Granted I like TRYING to analyze things in 40k (mostly because I see a machine my brain instantly starts unclothing it.... err I mean taking it apart to study it) with rational people without having to resort "it's Magic" but fanboyism will enevitably win out. Though i would like to think the Heavy stubber IS a MH2 just because I think it's going to be around till the end of time... When you get a design right the first time, you don't need to re do it. and correct me if I'm wrong but browning didn't even have a college education did he?

They didn't really try to disprove anything regarding the bolter, they just stated "it is so" and then said "science says it is so it is!" when anyone objected, and made assertions SUPPOSEDLY based on physics without any actual math or even really logic to back said assertions up.

Considering that the laws of thermodynamics can be circumvented in 40k (see: the warp and psykers), physics does occasionally take a back seat to cool. But even if you do consider it from a purely hard physics standpoint, consider this: it's cooler and smarter for bolt pistols to work at the close range they are designed to work at (they're pistols), so it is assumed that this is how their ammunition is designed to function-- which is to say it has more than enough force behind the initial firing of the bolt weapon to penetrate any target the bolt could likely penetrate after the rocket portion ignites. Unless fluff says otherwise, how can you disprove this? Bolters are highly successful weapons at any range, and are not known for being weak at close range, and the bolt pistol is a favored sidearm of many rich and important people-- for good reason, because it is brutally effective. Bolt pistols are close combat weapons for a reason just like laspistols/autopistols, because they are maneuverable and effective in close range combat. It's not like it's a gameplay mechanic that stops it, because hell there's already weapons out there that get stronger or weaker depending on range (see Conversion Beamer, Melta weapons).

Arguing that somehow bolt weapons are weaker at close rnage without any fluff, mathematic, or logical proof does not make for a convincing argument. Simply saying "physics!" does not make a convincing arguments, as physics does not say that a bolter shell cannot be launched with enough initial velocity that whatever, if any, speed increase after the rocket fuel ignites is statistically insignificant-- all that would be required is that the force of the charge in the shell casing be enough to send the bolt shell flying fast enough that it reaches terminal velocity either before or shortly after it activates its rocket. Given the MANY examples of bolt weapons used in close combat and very short range without any detrimental effect, there's no reason to think that this is not the case.

Dozens of people have insisted on this unproven assertion, and yet not a single one have I seen provide actual proof to back up their claims.

No the bolt would be less powerful at close range for the reasons shown and just saying all the childish comeback melllina when he has shown you scientific proof is imature.

It seems like you guys are arguing different things..
Obviously it will gain power as the bolt goes, but on the other hand it still is immensely powerful even when it's first shot.

royal house wrote:No the bolt would be less powerful at close range for the reasons shown and just saying all the childish comeback melllina when he has shown you scientific proof is imature.

Childish, says the guy who practices neither proper grammar nor proper spelling.

There was no "comeback", the fact remains that your supposed point has yet to be proven. You have provided no proof, no evidence, and barely even a logical argument-- one based off of an incomplete understanding of physics at best. The argument is based off of the unproven assumption that the bolter shell does not contain enough force to launch the shell out of the barrel at or very near to terminal velocity.

That does not make for an argument. There is no childish comeback here . I'm waiting for you guys to provide proof. Go on, do it.

Cantus wrote:Obviously it will gain power as the bolt goes

There's no "obviously" there, it's not absolutely true that this is so in any place save for the vacuum of space.

Dude a freaking bolter shell at close range would kill anything. An entire head exploded from a Bolt Pistol at arms length.
Yeah that is a weakness! *sarcasm*

Melissia wrote:It's not absolutely true that this is so in any place save for the vacuum of space.

Not trying to debate, I legitimately don't know and am just wondering if you could kindly explain, but do they not accelerate? Wouldn't it only make a difference if they're in a vacuum if they're firing at terminal velocity? Are they? Or am I missing something.

It's the concept of terminal velocity-- the velocity at which the drag (the friction of the air or whatever other substance you're moving through-- water for example) equals your acceleration.

In a pure vacuum, there is no such thing obviously, though even space isn't always a pure vacuum.

Right. But unless it started at that velocity, wouldn't it still work itself up to that point?

Yes, but there has not really been any proof presented which supports the claim that it doesn't start at or near that velocity.

They've just been working off of the assumption with no proof for it.

Gotcha. Whereas you believe it starts out at that velocity?

At or near it, yes.

Someone claimed they had a fluff source to support the low initial velocity claim, but they didn't actually provide a citation for it... aside from Lexicanum, which is fan-made material, and not official GW fluff.

Makes sense. There's a lot of fluff supporting that then? I know you had a list of pages at the beginning, but I haven't gotten around to reading any of the books (by the way, any suggestions of what to start?)

Will this forum help.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=121975&highlight=40k

Cantus wrote:Makes sense. There's a lot of fluff supporting that then? I know you had a list of pages at the beginning, but I haven't gotten around to reading any of the books (by the way, any suggestions of what to start?)

Namely, the roleplaying gmaes: Inquisitor, Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Ascension, and Deathwatch. All games, including the tabletop one (keep in mind that it is not unheard of to see weapon effectiveness increase or decrease as range increases in tabletop). Every single BL book I've read... etc...

it has more than enough force behind the initial firing of the bolt weapon to penetrate any target the bolt could likely penetrate after the rocket portion ignites.

So? Your point? just because it's still lethal at close range doesn't mean it's not more so at long range?

There's no "obviously" there, it's not absolutely true that this is so in any place save for the vacuum of space.

I just want to point out that if the rocket did not accelerate the projectile there would be no point in it, as you could just use that space to fill with more explosive set the bolt to blow on contact and have a real, micro grenade laucher, basically a fully auto matic XM25.... or AA12 with those tiny grenades...yes we have a fully auto hand held grenade laucher.... God bless america.

Also terminal velocity for a straight bullet (as in not a rocket) yall is 0 MPH in the horizontal direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cantus wrote:Makes sense. There's a lot of fluff supporting that then? I know you had a list of pages at the beginning, but I haven't gotten around to reading any of the books (by the way, any suggestions of what to start?)

Her sources didn't end up disproving the idea either just didn't mention anything about it either way, which isn't enough proof on here part to debunk the most basic physics of the kinematic equations. I mean you don't hear ANYTHING about the the workings of other weapons. it's a game they just dont put it in. They're not going to write a book on the subject just the very basics of them.

gendoikari87 wrote:

it has more than enough force behind the initial firing of the bolt weapon to penetrate any target the bolt could likely penetrate after the rocket portion ignites.

So? Your point? just because it's still lethal at close range doesn't mean it's not more so at long range?

Fail.. That sounded like really really not well thought out. If it is good at medium range, and close range! then it must suck at long range! Well heres the thing. No. It stays consistant throughout the shot. Bolter Shells are well known for keep on going until the hit something or until they hit their maximum range.

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

read it. it's just there to be OMG THE UBER!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Wait what? A conversion beam a joke?!?!?!? If you focus a thing of pure light into a small area it will grow into power? Have you not been looking at military TECH AT ALL!?!??!

Doesn't the conversion beamer work on antimater?

Asherian Command wrote:

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Wait what? A conversion beam a joke?!?!?!? If you focus a thing of pure light into a small area it will grow into power? Have you not been looking at military TECH AT ALL!?!??!

Can't tell if serious...
It "induces a controlled subatomic reaction in the target, converting its mass into energy." Goes on to say that the further away the target, the more deadly the blast "as the beam has time to grow in power." lol

Cantus wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Wait what? A conversion beam a joke?!?!?!? If you focus a thing of pure light into a small area it will grow into power? Have you not been looking at military TECH AT ALL!?!??!

Can't tell if serious...
It "induces a controlled subatomic reaction in the target, converting its mass into energy." Goes on to say that the further away the target, the more deadly the blast "as the beam has time to grow in power." lol

Sorry I was reading a Space Hulk Reference XD and no I was not being serious.

And your complete and utter lack of evidence is more than enough for me to say that you've beamed aboard this vessel.

I do not have to prove your point for you. Go on. Provide some evidence for your point. Your claims are completely and utterly without substance, and you have not given a single reason for anyone to believe in the supposed weakness you claim the weapon has.

Melissia wrote:And your complete and utter lack of evidence is more than enough for me to say that you've beamed aboard this vessel.

I do not have to prove your point for you. Go on. Provide some evidence for your point. Your claims are completely and utterly without substance, and you have not given a single reason for anyone to believe in the supposed weakness you claim the weapon has.

Who me?!?!?!? D: Because I Base it on fluff. Like from the heresy.

I never said it sucks at long range I said it's more powerful at long range. Also Mellissa tell me where in the fluff that solid projectile weapons are less effective and where it says lasers keep their effectiveness over all ranes and I will concede your point. you WON"T find it because they don't go into detail about it.

You're not the one that's claiming that bolters are somehow weaker at close range

I'm arguing that any difference in speed and force between short, medium, and long range for the bolter (until it runs out of fuel of course) is minimal at best (to the point of bieng insignificant) because it launches the shell with such force that it is at or near terminal velocity for an Earth-type atmosphere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:I never said it sucks at long range I said it's more powerful at long range.

Prove it.

Go on boyo, I've been waiting for you to do this.

I challenge you to prove your point, or just stop saying it.

gendoikari87 wrote:If the rocket is only there to counteract the force of drag, it's going to be very small and have no effect over the short range. Meaning it'd be better to use that volume to have More explosive.

Having more explosive would mean that the weapon has more chance to inflict friendly casualties in close combat. Having more non-rocket propellant means that it loses accuracy and speed over time far faster. Having rocket propellant allows it to maintain speed and course over long distances, allowing for greater accuracy.

This means the bolter is useful at all ranges. Which is why it's the primary weapon of tactical Marines...

I'm arguing that any difference in speed and force between short, medium, and long range for the bolter (until it runs out of fuel of course) is minimal at best

Then there is no point in the rocket.

also.


These arise not from individual mechanics of OUR universe but as a constant across all universes that work on a spacelike system which 40k is.

now show me where it says solid shell projectiles are less effective at longer ranges, lasers keep their effectiveness over all ranges and I will concede your point. and hit modifiers don't count, thats to hit not damage.

Asherian Command wrote:

Cantus wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Wait what? A conversion beam a joke?!?!?!? If you focus a thing of pure light into a small area it will grow into power? Have you not been looking at military TECH AT ALL!?!??!

Can't tell if serious...
It "induces a controlled subatomic reaction in the target, converting its mass into energy." Goes on to say that the further away the target, the more deadly the blast "as the beam has time to grow in power." lol

Sorry I was reading a Space Hulk Reference XD and no I was not being serious.

I was asking a serious question and i still don't see why it's a joke considering you have ships that jump into a different dimension for travel. It seems to fit the universe fine, i honestly don't understand peoples need to rationalise sci-fi stuff but there you go the world would be boring if we were all the same.

gendoikari87 wrote:Then there is no point in the rocket.

Bullets slow down over time due to drag. Rockets don't, even at terminal velocity, until their fuel runs out. That's the entire point of terminal velocity even-- the point at which drag matches acceleration.

Duh.

Being a supposed physics major, you should supposedly be able to understand this.

purplefood wrote: I was asking a serious question and i still don't see why it's a joke considering you have ships that jump into a different dimension for travel. It seems to fit the universe fine, i honestly don't understand peoples need to rationalise sci-fi stuff but there you go the world would be boring if we were all the same.

Well I think he was saying not to use it as an example because they're debating it using real world physics- which the beamer doesn't seem to very well fit into.
And dunno, I think it's cool when you can quantify how things in sci-fi universes work. It sort of bothers me when shows/books/whatever just make cool things happen and then don't give explanations. It's not as interesting to me unless it could really happen.

And now it seems like a dozen posts are missing in this thread.

Screw it, I don't have the patience needed to type it back out again. Suffice it to say, you're using an incredibly bad false dichotomy argument there and I will have nothing of it.

Hang on...

Wait what just happened?

There are different types of bolter ammunition. so what type are you guys arguing about?

and stop calling it a clip its a magazine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A MAGAZINE!!!!!!!!!!!!



=D

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Then there is no point in the rocket.

Bullets slow down over time due to drag. Rockets don't, even at terminal velocity, until their fuel runs out. That's the entire point of terminal velocity even-- the point at which drag matches acceleration.

Duh.

Being a supposed physics major, you should supposedly be able to understand this.

... you do realise you can counter that by replacing some of the rocket fuel by the supposed super gun powder and make it much much faster making it much better at short ranges and giving it overall the same range. As I said before, if you don't want it to go faster as time evolves theres no point in a rocket unless you want it guided. Have you even studied physics, your knowledge seems to be very poor in this manner. I don't mean that as an insult it just seems your arguing against the basic principals upon which physics is founded.

If the rocket is only there to counteract the force of drag, it's going to be very small and have no effect over the short range. Meaning it'd be better to use that volume to have More explosive.

Another point The fluff never states the rocket is for just overcoming air drag, where are you getting this. it states they are rockets, which are known to go accelerate. so where is your fluff for stating it's just there to overcome drag. that they are stronger is therefore implied by calling them small rockets.

also as Stated before terminal velocity of a bullet in the horizontal direction is 0.

I'm going to work on a much longer post to proove my point tomorrow which means I have to go through as much of the fluff tonight. But I still challenge you to find me examples in the fluff where the damage over the range is expressed expressly elsewhere, not the accuracy but the damage. Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Edit: just noticed this

That's the entire point of terminal velocity even-- the point at which drag matches acceleration.

it's the point at which the air drag matches the other FORCES on it, not the acceleration. a small difference mostly in nomenclature but it can and sometimes does matter.

This thread is suffering a temporal paradox... I wonder if we should get a mod to lock it before it breaks the forum...

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Blank

Someones screwing with us. ....

Well I think he was saying not to use it as an example because they're debating it using real world physics

basically yeah, but also I think because the rules came before the fluff for it.

Melissia wrote:This thread is suffering a temporal paradox... I wonder if we should get a mod to lock it before it breaks the forum...

I think in much of the world there's a daylight savings change tonight.. is this a UK site?

I think so...

I bet that's it..

Wait ... I don't think so because I think UK sites end their names i .uk like warhammer.org.uk ... which is a good site by the way check it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also mellissa I can't find the inq and dark heresy stuff do you mind posting their descriptions here or PMing me?

gendoikari87 wrote:Basically this thread comes out of a disscussion between myself and another but I thought I would expand the discussion into a wide range of 40k tech that bugs people

first off the basics with real life counterpoints and my personal thoughts/knowledge

Autoguns- These are basically Marginally stronger than modern assault rifles, and depending on the fluff, about as strong as lasguns, or "stronger" i.e. penetrate better. Though some fluff has lasguns destroying tanks (think C.S. Goto like fluff knowledge)
Heavy stubbers- Machine guns of all kinds from MG42's to MH2B's
Autocannons- just that 20-30mm autocannons (though the OLD OLD OLD OLD wargear book says they are basically modern tank cannons, most of the new stuff puts them at around the level of a high end bushmaster)

Boltguns- and heres where the main discussion comes from, Bolt weapons are described as what is basically and advanced gyrojet system, with the bolt being propelled by a small charge to get it out of the gun before it's main rocket motor fires off. I still think that like gyrojets, they are more powerful at longer ranges due to higher veolocity but in either case the standard bolt also has an explosive charge (set to explode after penetration).

Missiles- These I would greatly like to know more about, everything I have read would put them as Generation II shaped charges, which are significantly less powerful than current modern generation III copper lined linear shaped charges. but I need more info.

If I have missed anything and I know I have, feel free to post.

On Boltguns, the German Company Heckler & Koch actually developed a Assault Rifle prototype in the early 90's that shot single bullets without the use of gunpowder. It utilized a propellent stored in the butt of the bull pup design that shot standard bullets, aka bullets that had no gunpowder and didn't make such a loud bang. However just like every other sweet and amazing H&K prototype they had to scrap it because my american bretheran (sigh) thought it was a dumb idea and would't purchase it, just like we won't puchase most of their amazing guns because we are so cheap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please allow me to say... GET BACK ON TOPIC!!! thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GamzaTheChaos wrote:There are different types of bolter ammunition. so what type are you guys arguing about?

and stop calling it a clip its a magazine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A MAGAZINE!!!!!!!!!!!!



=D

I do not claim to be a Physics Major, however I am a weapons man. Not hunting... weapons. Big difference, and yes it is called a magazine, a clip is for an SKS russian semi-auto assault rifle or an M1. A magazine is for holding bullets in a nice nifty order to keep them clean and easy to use. A clip is just to keep the damn things together and hate yourself when you use them.

while I'm working on my final and I mean FINAL argument about bolts, open your mind and watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnHyEhS1lSM

while I'm at it can anybody find a copy of warhammer wargear book from 4th and PM me what it says about bolts?

Thats cool, but I thought I was supposed to relate to a real gun. My bad.

in the most simplistic sense bolts are basically gyrojets with an initial charge.

Again, not a physics major, just a 'real-life' gun owner/fanatic. Thought this would be a gun one for me... I was wrong (sigh).

Page 97 Space Marines codex reads

The boltgun, or bolter, fires small missiles, or 'bolts'. Each
self-propelled bolt explodes with devastating effect once it
has penetrated its target, blowing it apart from the inside.

If you read this carefully you may note that the passage dictates that the bolts are self propelled, a term used again in the rouge trader rulebook of 2009. Meaning if they do in fact have an initial charge This charge only gives them some initial velocity Vinitial. While the rocket accelerates them to higher velocities. if the rocket only overcame the force of air resistance it's very unlikely they would be called self propelled as that term indicates that the object itself does most of the work.


The last part says in combination that the bolt penetrates it's targets, blowing them apart from the inside. Meaning it must penetrate at least partially into the chest cavity requiring it to enter or fully penetrate the targets body armor. Meaning that in order explode they must defeate the targets body armor and the more energy the rocket has the higher the chance it's going to defeat said armor. which could mean the difference between detonation and the round bouncing off.

Meanwhile, as I have done my searching the only weapons that even remotely show a difference in destructive potential are the ones for which special rules were made first and the weapons were fitted to the fluff (sometimes poorly done) such as the meltagun. Those that don't have these special rules but DO have range-damage variances, it doesn't mention because it's supposed to be understood that, for autoguns for example, The round looses energy as it travels farther. or a flamer's gout disperses and is less lethal (all beit still very deadly as burning prometheum is basically really good napalm). These books for the most part leave these facts out because they are no brainers, much as it is SUPPOSED to be with bolters, when describing them as miniature missiles that are self propelled. Therefor your point about mine not being valid based on none of the rule books explicitly stating it is invalid.

I have more research to go do as I have heard a friend say that it does explicitly state that they are more powerful at longer ranges in the warhamer 4th edition wargear book. I have to find that before I close my argument.

That video is fan-made as well, not a GW production or worked on by GW (as is the case with the various rpgs produced by FFG, where GW assigned writers to work on it, occasionally even bringing in such big names as Andy Hoare).

Bolts are self-propelled, whoopty doo, now tell us something we don't know already. More importantly, you continue to make the UNPROVEN assumption that just because it is self-propelled that it does not have a significant, non-insubstantial amount of traditional propellant as well. If it were a purely self-propelled round it wouldn't need a shell casing (which it does have, by the way).

Prove your assumption. Go find some actual GW fluff that says it. Just because GW fluff does not say you are wrong does not mean you are right.

it is self-propelled that it does not have a significant, non-insubstantial amount of traditional propellant as well

You know what, I have a feeling it doesn't matter what I say, your just going to come back with the same thing you have all along, "your wrong because GW didn't say it explicitly"

so instead of continuing to argue with a brick wall I leave this thread and you with this: It's initial charge is irrelevant entirely to my point as the rocket will increase it's energy and make it more powerful at longer ranges. that it accelerates is proven by being "self propelled" so therefore I am correct, and you cannot prove me wrong no matter what you do, and have offered ABSOLUTELY NO VALID POINTS OF YOUR OWN OTHER THAN OMG GW DIDN"T SAY IT!!!!!!. Whatever power it has at short range, it has more at long range. I don't really care anymore that you believe me as I know as a matter of fact you are wrong, I have demonstrated this through fluff an physics and yet you rebuke any valid point I make, and twist whatever evidence is there to suit your own point by omiting any evidence contrary to your own. I have a feeling you are arguing just to argue so I'm just going to quit having proven you wrong even if you don't believe it.

gendoikari87 wrote:It's initial charge is irrelevant entirely to my point as the rocket will increase it's energy

You continue to fail physics, congratulations.

A rocket increases its kinetic energy (not actually increasing its energy overall I should note, but rather changing potential energy in the form of fuel into a constant stream of kinetic energy until the fuel burns out)-- which is constantly decreasing because of air resistance.

The logic behind bolter shells is simple:

-- Bullets start out with a high initial speed and then slow down because of their method of propulsion.

-- Rockets have a low initial speed and then speed up because of their method of propulsion.

-- Bolter shells have a high initial speed and then maintain that speed for combining the best aspects of the two methods of propulsion.

Your argument that the bolter shells must have a low initial speed is completely and utterly, wholly and in its entirety, without a single shred or speck of merit, as you have yet to provide any proof of it.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:It's initial charge is irrelevant entirely to my point as the rocket will increase it's energy

You continue to fail physics, congratulations.

A rocket increases its kinetic energy (not actually increasing its energy overall I should note, but rather changing potential energy in the form of fuel into a constant stream of kinetic energy until the fuel burns out)-- which is constantly decreasing because of air resistance.

No you fail, utterly, who here is the physics senior. I am. You are not. Who do you think doesn't know their physics here? if you light a rocket the vehicle accelerates, you CAN cause it to slow down but that requires a controlable rocket which is purely a liquid, bolts are described as being solid rocket propellant. I really can't put it more simply for you than that. Now quit, I proved you wrong, either admit it, or live with it.

-- Bolter shells have a high initial speed and then maintain that speed for combining the best aspects of the two methods of propulsion.

Just... just go read books on energy density. Quit arguing physics. you really are showing you know nothing about it. You don't just keep your current velocity with the larger proportion of your energy density in the rocket, you accelerate. Think for a minute if the main charge was really that powerful with such a small design parameter why would they not make it at least 50/50?

gendoikari87 wrote:No you fail, utterly, who here is the physics senior. I am.

Dude, you don't even know what terminal velocity is, you aren't a physics major, you're just some random dude off the internet that's trying to claim that they're a physics major to attempt to one-up someone they're having an argument with.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:No you fail, utterly, who here is the physics senior. I am.

Dude, you don't even know what terminal velocity is, you aren't a physics major, you're just some random dude off the internet that's trying to claim that they're a physics major to attempt to one-up someone they're having an argument with.

no, YOU are the one who didn't know what terminal velocity it. Now tell me, calculate the terminal velocity in the horizontal direction the one that matters for this argument for a normal bullet. and then for the bolt. it's extremely easy for the first. and not so hard for the second.

see because the force of air resistance on a bullet makes the terminal velocity 0 zip nadda

for a bolt it's when the force of air resisntance equals the rocket and most rockets produce a good amount of thrust so the bolt would have to be going hypersonic before the propellant wouldn't matter. as bolts are rather aerodynamic with a dense tip.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:No you fail, utterly, who here is the physics senior. I am.

Dude, you don't even know what terminal velocity is, you aren't a physics major, you're just some random dude off the internet that's trying to claim that they're a physics major to attempt to one-up someone they're having an argument with.

I lol'd
+1

This has seriously gone on for too long, somebody pm a mod

Dude, you don't even know what terminal velocity is

um... I believe I was the one that CORRECTLY defined it. You keep saying i'm an idiot when I make a good point, and it's really pissing me off. Your using it as an excuse to say i'm wrong when I'm actually right. How you can get people to believe you I do not know. as I said before I quit this is my last post be happy being ignorant of physics.

gendoikari87 wrote:no, YOU are the one who didn't know what terminal velocity it. Now tell me, calculate the terminal velocity in the horizontal direction the one that matters for this argument for a normal bullet. and then for the bolt. it's extremely easy for the first. and not so hard for the second.

I know full well what terminal velocity is. I'm not a math major, but it is not the math that matters-- it's the concept that does. If you are so stuck on the math that you forget to know the concept, you don't really know it.

An object is moving at terminal velocity if its speed is constant due to the resistance exerted by the material it's moving through, IE air, water, or some other fluid or gas. It's really that simple. This can be applied to quite a few things-- the terminal velocity of a jet plane is the speed at which it literally cannot go any faster given infinite fuel and attempted acceleration. The terminal velocity of a rocket is the speed at which it does not accelerate even if it still has fuel left to burn.

I cannot tell you the "terminal velocity of a bullet" because I'm not a mathematics major, and there's hundreds, if not thousands, of different kinds of bullets, each of which will have a different terminal velocity due to their designs and the materials the're made up of (the aerodynamic shape of the bullet, and a dozen other little data bits besides, will effect terminal velocity). For example, the terminal velocity of a skydiver is dependent on the position of their limbs-- this is also shown by the speed of a peregrine falcon as well, when it dives (which can get to over 320 km/h). What I can do is tell you the basic concepts of terminal velocity, which you seem to be completely and utterly ignoring in an attempt to put me on the spot by trying to make me do math.

I'm not falling for it, you should note.

I cannot tell you the "terminal velocity of a bullet" because I'm not a mathematics major

0 there are no forces acting on it in the horizontal direction so it's terminal velocity in the horizontal direction is 0mph/kph or whatever units you use. This is the sort of thing i'm talking about it does not matter what kind of bullet it is unless it has a motor of some kind on it.

gendoikari87 wrote:as I said before I quit this is my last post be happy being ignorant of physics.

LIES!

Which goes nicely with my point that bolter shells DO in fact benefit from having rocket propellant despite having a very high initial velocity... the rocket propellant maintains speed over time until the propellant runs out, extending its effective range by having its speed be stable over it, thus making it more reliably useful over the course of short, medium, and long range. A bullet at extreme ranges loses speed and at some point actually becomes unable to penetrate armor that it could have at close range.

Simply increasing the propellant increases its initial speed, but still means it will slow down over time. The bolter is designed to be useful at all ranges, not just close range. And having more propellant would also mean more recoil as well.

No because the Force of Air resisnance is small compared to any rocket motor including the ones we have today for model rockets. This is the point you aren't getting. go read and get it. I'm done this is my last post.

gendoikari87 wrote:No because the Force of Air resisnance is small

... and yet, it gets high enough to rip apart aircraft that go past certain speeds (depending on the shape of the aircraft and how sturdy its construction of course), or even actually cause them to burn up because of the heat generated by air and wind resistance.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:No because the Force of Air resisnance is small

... and yet, it gets high enough to rip apart aircraft that go past certain speeds, or even actually cause them to burn up because of the heat generated by air and wind resistance.

... still arguing... god here we go. Look planes rip apart because unlike bullets they aren't made of solid metal. A good deal of bullets surpass the speed at which most planes would break up. Bullets were going supersonic before people even though a plane going supersonic was possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also planes have a much larger surface area making the force of AR much larger by several factors. if you were to basically scale down an airplane to a bullet size it'd be made of essentially tin foil. probably thinner. and MUCH MUCH lighter than the bullet so the force of AR would slow it down much faster.

Yes you are, why are you posting when you said it was your last post?

Which means that the speeds of bolter shells would be much higher, but that doesn't mean that the speed of the bolter shell has any significant change over time. Trying to claim that somehow bolter shells are weak at close range defies all known fluff, and for all of your attempts to argue that said weakness exists, you have yet to actually provide any real evidence aside from fan-made material.

Well here's some fan-made material for you.

Once upon a time, there was this one human called Duke Forekedona, who put his finger into a boltgun's barrel and stopped the shell because it wasn't going fast enough. Then the Marine punched him in the face for being impudent and he died. The end.

Well I guess that means your argument is entirely right, after all, there's some fan-made material there as proof!

and for all of your attempts to argue that said weakness exists, you have yet to actually provide any real evidence aside from fan-made material.

no you just refuse to see that I have even though I have done so in many many ways, and you have yet to offer any evidence on your side.

Bolters do not have any benefit in penetrating power or damage potential at longer ranges, no matter the system that they are in-- and that includes all five editions, Inquisitor, the various FFG roleplaying games, and the various video games. Indeed, in Dawn of War 2 they actually have a damage increase at short range, rather than long (most notable on heavy bolters and boltguns, which provide a higher damage output the closer the enemy is). That is more than enough proof that the speed does not increase over time.

We do not know the exact physics of the bolter shell, only vague descriptions, so any supposed fault there is due to said ambiguity. What is not ambiguous, however, is the fact that bolt pistols do not have reduced effectiveness at close range.

Fine you win, you're wrong but you win through sheer perseverance. Congratulations you ignored your way to victory.

U mad bro?

I'm tired of arguing with idiots who refuse to listen.

It's funny that even educated people like gendoikari87 look at a Sci-Fi genre and try to explain why things wouldn't work instead of trying to imagine how they could work. It's almost as if the internet has spawned "Hating", for lack of a better term, as a roadblock to the inovation that it could potentially bring.

I'm not ignoring my way to victory, I'm waiting for you to post some fething proof to support your assumptions.

That's the thing, I could CLAIM that lasguns are actually crossbows, but there's no proof of it, so my claims, no matter how logical it might seem, are unfounded and therefor noone's going to agree with it.

I'm not ignoring my way to victory, I'm waiting for you to post some fething proof to support your assumptions.

Go back and re read the thread I already have.

It's funny that even educated people like gendoikari87 look at a Sci-Fi genre and try to explain why things wouldn't work instead of trying to imagine how they could work. It's almost as if the internet has spawned "Hating", for lack of a better term, as a roadblock to the inovation that it could potentially bring.

Theres a difference between innovation and actually making a bad system worse which is what mellissa is proposing Bolters are. The biggest problem gyrojets had was the initial velocity problems. Bolters psuedo fix that by adding a first inital stage. However big this initial stage is, is independant of the fact that a rocket attached to the projectile will accelerate it and make it go faster. That is unless the initial stage takes it beyond mach 5, at which point worrying about air drag is a moot point and can be fixed by just adding more mass to the projectile.

gendoikari87 wrote:

I'm not ignoring my way to victory, I'm waiting for you to post some fething proof to support your assumptions.

Go back and re read the thread I already have.

No.

You have not.

You have posted only two sources, both of which were fan-made material. They are not canon.


I posted numerous sources, and even cited page numbers which show the complete lack of a weakness you suggest is there. And I don't don't have to prove that it isn't there (proving a negative is nigh-on impossible anyway, especially when it comes to fiction), you have to prove that it is, and you are failing.

Hard.

It would appear that bolter shells would suffer from the lack of speed (and penetration power) that a missile would have just after firing BUT it seems that whoever created the bolter has put an initial charge in the projectile making it a shell, like a normal bullet, and using the rest of it's fuel (or whatever it uses) it maintains it's speed until it runs out of fuel and drops.
Is that what Melissa is saying? Because that sounds correct to me.

Yeah me to. Even though I only study history and math. It sounds right to me.

-2015 Asherian (God Damn I was stupid back then.)

There is a problem with that theory is simple energy density, which i've already stated and shown. most of a bolt shell is made up of the rocket and the initial charge is VERY small in comparison to the rocket.

I posted numerous sources

none that said anything useful. and if you'll look up I did post two sources.

Maybe it uses something different from what we use as an initial propellant maybe it uses "space gun powder" or just something more powerful than our gun powder.

Like from mass effect?

purplefood wrote:Maybe it uses something different from what we use as an initial propellant maybe it uses "space gun powder" or just something more powerful than our gun powder.

as I have said the initial charge is not the problem its the rocket fule which comprises most of the shell volume and even modern rockets would overcome the force of air drag. I can only imagine in the far future they also are smart enough to make "space Rocket Fule"

gendoikari87 wrote:none that said anything useful. and if you'll look up I did post two sources.

No you didn't.

Lexicanum is not itself a direct source, it is a fan-made site and therefor contributed to by fans, not by GW itself.

The video is similarly a fan-made source.

Neither of them are canon.

Space marine codex and warhamer: Wargear ring any bells.

gendoikari87 wrote:

purplefood wrote:Maybe it uses something different from what we use as an initial propellant maybe it uses "space gun powder" or just something more powerful than our gun powder.

as I have said the initial charge is not the problem its the rocket fule which comprises most of the shell volume and even modern rockets would overcome the force of air drag. I can only imagine in the far future they also are smart enough to make "space Rocket Fule"

Well obviously they can maybe it's a slow burn but high output fuel... basically a miracle fuel.

You mentioned them, but never actually cited them. No quotations, no page numbers.

which proves you haven't eve been thoughully reading my posts. there is officially no point in continuing this debate

gendoikari87 wrote:which proves you haven't eve been thoughully reading my posts. there is officially no point in continuing this debate

Or you could quickly quote them and continue to have a nice friendly debate where we all reach a point that everyone is happy with?
Unlikely but everyone needs a dream...

Well obviously they can maybe it's a slow burn but high output fuel... basically a miracle fuel.

Then there wouldn't need to be a whole lot of rocket fuel. Just face it mellisas side is basically dead. using what ifs with no fluff backing whatso ever. She's stated sources that don't go into detail about either of our points and refused mine when I gave them. she's just crying because she's lost now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 97 space marines. Page 122 Rough trader 2005

no sources have explicitly stated either side but the anecdotal evidence leans to my side. Mellssa thinks just becuase theyre deadly at short range that means they can't be more so at long, and she's wrong.

Maybe the bolts are supposed to be very long range and that needs lots of fuel.
And also maybe when it says missiles it means just projectiles and not actually missiles.(in relation to you point on page 97 of the SM codex)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahh well yeah they could be more deadly at long range depending on material compostion, fuel and weight. It would also depend on atmosphere (for the air resistance) so it would change from planet to planet.

... by definition, an arrow is a missile.

Melissia wrote:... by definition, an arrow is a missile.

last Time I check they were NOT self propelled however.

And atmosphere won't matter much were talking in order for the rocket to JUST counteract air drag you'd have to be firing the bolt in an atmosphere as thick as water. at already incredibly high speeds.

Who doesn't use self-propelled arrows anymore? Seriously, what do you think this is, the Middle Ages?!

Rogue Trader (not Rough Trader), the old first edition isn't canon anymore. Now, if it was Rogue Trader, the RPG, then yes.

Yes, they're self-propelled. Tell us something we don't already know. Noone except noone is disputing that they're self-propelled. Try actually proving your point, because simply saying they're self-propelled doesn't. Where, exactly, does it say that they are weaker at close range than at long range?

yeah the 2009 game.

where does it say they're stronger at close ranges. hmm. tell me. proove your point. as I have said to this brick wall a thousand times none of the fluffs go into that much detail.

If you'd actually read my posts, you'd realize I said they're at equal strength at short, medium, and long range (Not that they are stronger at short range). Which is supported by EVERY single GW fluff and game source printed since third edition at least (and even than only because I'm too lazy to go back and read the second edition and rogue trader again). 3rd, 4th, and 5th tabletop editions, all of the roleplaying games, all of the videogames (even DoW2's damage increase at close range is due to accuracy rather than being an inherent part of the weapon-- all suppression weapons have increased damage at short range), and the Black Library books too. They don't talk about a weakness bolters have at close range BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Meanwhile your position is supported by no official source. Not a single one. And I defy you to prove otherwise.

Okay.
Lets all calm down shall we.
Take a deep breathe, have a cup of tea and then carry on.
Note: Deep breathe is optional.

you can't use the games rules as proofs, they are simplified to make things easier even the DOW games.

gendoikari87 wrote:you can't use the games rules as proofs, they are simplified to make things easier even the DOW games.

Roleplaying games aren't simplified. Dark Heresy has rules for extreme long range, jamming, reloading, cleaning one's weapon in combat, various quality weapons, thrown hand grenades doing actual damage, rules for using psychic powers to cause someone's eye to twitch, rules for shotguns and similar weapons having a different effect than normal weapons, and so on and so forth. Roleplaying games are exactly the kind of game where this kind of information is used, but bolt weapons do not have greater effectiveness at long range than short range (like the reverse of meltaguns and shotguns, amongst other things).

The fact that not a single source of information supports your argument out of EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF FLUFF IN THE SETTING says more than enough about the quality of the argument. Your argument has as much merit as the claim that the smurfette is married to Marneus Calgar. What, there's nothing saying she isn't.

I continue to defy you to provide proof.

You continue to fail in this endeavor.

Until you stop failing to produce proof, there is nothing more that can be said on this argument.

Then why don't you state what they DO say. go ahead I bet they say nothing about it either way. and what's more you have yet to show where these game systems show the range damages of OTHER weapons.

I'm waiting.

Do you have your evidence yet, or are you going to continue trying to change the subject because you have none?

Melissia wrote:I'm waiting.

Do you have your evidence yet, or are you going to continue trying to change the subject because you have none?

Let me say this and get it into your head. YOU HAVE NOT POINT BASED ON GAME SYSTEMS. More than that, you have no other cases where ranged effectiveness is discussed. THEREFORE it's not gone into. GET THIS INTO YOUR HEAD. the only way we can derive information from it is from the way they work. I have proven my point time and time again, and the little fluff that does go into any detail supports my theory. Take a break clear your head and go back and read between the lines of your sources you will find it there. GOOD FREAKING NIGHT!

I see that you continue to avoid providing evidence for your position . Very well then, toodles.

ROuge Trader 121- 122 READ IT Warhamer: wargear from 2005 has it as well in more detail.

Can either of you actually tell me what points you're arguing in 2 lines?
Because i'm really confused.

purplefood wrote:Can either of you actually tell me what points you're arguing in 2 lines?
Because i'm really confused.

Bolts increase in kinetic energy the farther they go because they accelerate due to being a rocket.

Furthermore they don't just overcome air resistance because A) that'd be stupid and B) even modern small rockets would do more than overcome the air resistance.

Thridly all of mellissas sources omit anything about range whatso ever on al weapons as it's supposed to be a no brainer, and they don't want to go that much into detail. She's arguing a non point.

As an objects speed increases so does the amount of air resistance it faces also increase.

Terminal velocity is generally only applied where the force of gravity is the only major factor acting upon the body. So for example a stone thrown from an airplane would have a terminal velocity where the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to wind resistance. In an instance where you have a powered projectile for example the airplane mentioned in my previous example. The terminal velocity of the body in the horizontal direction is shown as the point where the acceleration due to the projectiles power source minus the amount of acceleration required to overcome the force of gravity in the horizontal direction is equal to the acceleration due to wind resistance. Terminal velocityies meaning changes upon the definaition of the system and its peramaters.

So if we go back and look at a rocket useing all of the concepts that I have detailed in the above post, we see the following peices.

The body is considered the projectile itself.
During its flight the body is acted upon by three forces.
1 - An acceleration applied to the body via its own propellant
2- The force of gravity in the vertical direction
3 - An acceleration due to wind resistance in the opposite direction of Force 1

Now, Force 1 must overcome 2 forces, when it reaches the point where the sum of the equation is equal to 0 then the body can be said to have reached its Terminal Velocity.

Now to correct some things that have been said in previous posts. Ther Terminal Velocity of a system is not the point at which Wind Resistance can not be overcome by any amount of force, it is the point at which Wind Resistance can not be overcome by any amount of force avalible to the system.

Now for some additional clarification to other things.

- Rockets do not nessacarily increase acceleration they can also be used to maintain velocity. Effectivly rendering the acceleration of a system 0.

I'm seeing a mild Gailbraithean break down in potential here......

But in all honesty, Melissia's in the right here. The tabeltop game and DoW not having bolters deal higher damage is something I can understand. Who wants to have to deal with all those extra complications while trying to play a game? But the fact that the RPGs do not include such a mechanism is pretty damning. RPGs are meant to come as close to real world as they can. Moreover, it doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective either.

If bolters really did more and more damage as range increased, wouldn't Space Marine tactics and the Index Astartes take note of this fact? Wouldn't Assault Marines and other close combat specialists be avoided in favor of taking advantage of this capability? Quite clearly, close quarters combat remains a key part of Space Marine doctrine, with equal emphasis given to ranged combat. If bolters damage increased with range, no doubt we would see a greater emphasis on Devastators, and Sternguard Marines.

Finally, we have to note that we don't know everything about 41st millenium technology, and our analysis here only goes so far. If the fluff says something works like X, then it works like X regardless of what we think SHOULD happen. Just because modern materials science and ballistics suggests one thing, there's no reason why there can't be some kind of strange technology that allows the weapon to defy the modern prediction, and instead act the way it does in the fluff.

ChrisWWII wrote:Finally, we have to note that we don't know everything about 41st millenium technology, and our analysis here only goes so far. If the fluff says something works like X, then it works like X regardless of what we think SHOULD happen. Just because modern materials science and ballistics suggests one thing, there's no reason why there can't be some kind of strange technology that allows the weapon to defy the modern prediction, and instead act the way it does in the fluff.

QFT - Many thousands years will pass between now and then.

Ask an old timer if they could have ever imagened a computer in every house. Technology changes in wierd ways. 50 years ago people thought we'd all have flying cars. Instead we have computers and LCD TV's. Who knows what 38,000 years will bring.

Catyrpelius wrote:

- Rockets do not nessacarily increase acceleration they can also be used to maintain velocity. Effectivly rendering the acceleration of a system 0.

This is correct however for a dense core tip projectile like a bolt, The air resistance isn't going to be equal to the force the rocket puts out unless either the rocket is a small, SLOW burn. OR the initial velocity is extremely high like, low railgun speeds at which point were not talking a need for explosives. OR bolts use a THV tip, which they don't unfortunately. as we have it, a bolt is relatively aero dynamic, not the best shape but it's okay. The rocket takes up about 3/4 of the space availible propellant the other quarter is for the main kicker charge. so one could say about 2/3's of the bolts energy comes from the rocket (due to the rocket being less efficient than the main charge)

Finally, we have to note that we don't know everything about 41st millenium technology, and our analysis here only goes so far. If the fluff says something works like X, then it works like X regardless of what we think SHOULD happen. Just because modern materials science and ballistics suggests one thing, there's no reason why there can't be some kind of strange technology that allows the weapon to defy the modern prediction, and instead act the way it does in the fluff.

The point isn't that the fluff contradicts it, it's that it says nothing about it one way or another. and this goes for other weapons as well. The only thing it does say is that they are self propelled. a solid bullet slows down over time, but you don't hear the fluff mentioning that or showing that with the autoguns. so we are left with anecdotal evidence which in this case due to the design we can gleam a lot about it.

But in all honesty, Melissia's in the right here. The tabeltop game and DoW not having bolters deal higher damage is something I can understand. Who wants to have to deal with all those extra complications while trying to play a game? But the fact that the RPGs do not include such a mechanism is pretty damning. RPGs are meant to come as close to real world as they can. Moreover, it doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective either.

actually warhammer is very abstract and 40k even more so. I mean a single ordinace direct hit to a unit in cover still grants a 4+ save so that half the soldiers will survive, but in reality that blast is going to blow apart most cover or at least something like a basilisk will, and a picket fence will grant a 5+ save... I dont know about you but I would trust a picket fence to stop 1/3 of the shots coming my way or cover enough of me to disrupt aiming that muc. That they don't include it isn't damning at all as the profiles used are more than likely an average, s at say 12 feet they'd be between a str 3-4 and at 200 feet something like 4-5. At low range they wouldn't be quite low enough to call them str 3 and at long not quite strong enough to call them str 5 but averaging something close to str 4.

If bolters really did more and more damage as range increased, wouldn't Space Marine tactics and the Index Astartes take note of this fact?

No, as seen here

Drive me closer I want to hit them with my sword.

Finally, we have to note that we don't know everything about 41st millenium technology, and our analysis here only goes so far. If the fluff says something works like X, then it works like X regardless of what we think SHOULD happen.

Problem is, that it does not say that it works like x, or like Y just that it works. and in honesty this is where the case of "It's 40,000 years in the future tech is more advanced" actually makes sense. I mean modern model rocket engines easily overcome high air drag, and those are only .50 caliber equivalent, I can only imagine what a larger more advanced formula rocket can do.

sorry if this has already been posted, but there is no way I would ever read eight pages so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAiJLdQQZz4

bolter if I've ever seen one

add a rocket to the grenade rounds and a diamante tip and basically yes.

also

Miniature assault cannon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIqTO6mVJyg&feature=related

Probably an approxamate equivalent to a 40k assault cannon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S21EG5cACQA&feature=related

and the vulkan mega bolter equivalent using solid shells. (Seriously if the human race is still around in 40,00 years the Gau-8 will probably be also)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBXrogB8L08&feature=related

Bolter weakness? The need for ammunition.

undivided wrote:Bolter weakness? The need for ammunition.

well yes that too but I think space marines have their own miniature forges don't they? Not too sure on that one. but that would make it less of a drawback. Besides they're space marines they have to be as gory as they can. and exploding your head from inside out is good way to do that.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Drive me closer I want to hit them with my sword.

You didn't seriously just quote that right?
That's meant to be a joke.

Meant to be, yes, but it's not a joke in the 40k game and universe where hitting people in the face with chainsaw blades is considered a good tactical strategy. It's specifically a joke making fun of how impractical 40k tactics and strategy are. I mean I asked my military buddies what military CQC was like hoping to learn some good karate or krav magra stuff, and he flat out told me military CQC was there just to keep you alive long enough to allow your buddy to come over and blast the guy in the head.

Moral of the story you don't need to punch a guy in the face when you can pop a cap in his head.

gendoikari87 wrote:Meant to be, yes, but it's not a joke in the 40k game and universe where hitting people in the face with chainsaw blades is considered a good tactical strategy. It's specifically a joke making fun of how impractical 40k tactics and strategy are. I mean I asked my military buddies what military CQC was like hoping to learn some good karate or krav magra stuff, and he flat out told me military CQC was there just to keep you alive long enough to allow your buddy to come over and blast the guy in the head.

Moral of the story you don't need to punch a guy in the face when you can pop a cap in his head.

When you can make armour that effectively makes you almost invulnerable to small arms fire then close combat seems lie a perfectly fine idea.

Especially when the other guy has that armor too.

When you can make armour that effectively makes you almost invulnerable to small arms fire then close combat seems lie a perfectly fine idea.

Sure you go put on that power armor and charge be with a sword, mean while I'll pull out my AA12 or XM25 and put a round directly into your helmet. Probably your eye socket if it's an xm 25 heck even a good ol M203 would do the job but that'd be overkill.

And then the helmet deflects the AA12 because it's an overhyped piece of gak

Also, getting headshots on moving targets in close combat is far harder than you think it is.

An 8 foot tall Power Armoured Super Human with a Chainsaw Sword is alot more intimidating then a guy with a gun.

Catyrpelius wrote:An 8 foot tall Power Armoured Super Human with a Chainsaw Sword is alot more intimidating then a guy with a gun.

So? a 7' tall MMA fighter with his fists is a lot more intimidating than a 5' tall little girl with a 9mm but guess who i'd rather go up against? Yeah I'm gunna take my chances with the MMA guy. Just because I can run away, and even if I can't a fist is going to do a lot less damage than a 9mm hollow point.

And then the helmet deflects the AA12 because it's an overhyped piece of gak

Also, getting headshots on moving targets in close combat is far harder than you think it is.

Lol 40k fanboyisms... NO an aa12's grenade is not going to deflect it will explode because we were smart enough to make it blow on impact, and headshots on something moving toward you isnt that hard or at least upper torso isn't that hard and an none of those really need direct head shots. for power armor they might require contact but that's about it. Besides you can always hide and snipe or run, you can't run any faster in power armor than you can on foot. or just wait for the power armor to run out of power.

also a side arm to a space marines main camera would probably suck for him.

In reality the age of sword fighting is over, in 40k however where imagination can take over it's fine simply because it's fun.

Except not everyone in the 40k univese is a frail human.

Space Mariens - There bodies have very few week points where a normal could actually kill them, more then likely you'd hurt them but it would just piss them off more. If there armor can withstand hits from an Autocannon, then its pretty good against anything we could field.

Orks - Da Green Tide

Tyrnid - Swarms

etc.etc.etc

Bullets do not solve anything, but a chain sword or a power weapon does.

gendoikari87 wrote:and headshots on something moving toward you isnt that hard

Here's someone that has been playing far too many FPS games and doesn't know what it's like to fire a weapon at someone IRL.

Drive me closer I want to hit them with my sword!

that really says it all. The only reason we don't have bigger weapons is we don't need them. if we were to face space marines using nothing but close combat we could make an infantry gun that would easilly down them. As seen in the AA12 miniature grenades are possible, which would make miniature shaped charges possible as well to some extent. and those would eat a marine alive. Now if the space marines were to pick up lasguns THEN we might be screwed.

you said you worked on the XM25 didn't you?

When blades are better at penetrating armor then I'm going to hit you with it.

In the universe that is 40k Power Weapons regardless of what form they are in are the most destructive man portable weapons out there.

Melissia wrote:And then the helmet deflects the AA12 because it's an overhyped piece of gak

Well one of my co-workers designed one of the rounds intended for that... he says it can penetrate 1.5" steel plate with a .4" hole on the rear side. I don't think thats "overhyped." Most infantry armored transports are .5" to 1" hardened aluminum, so it can penetrate vehicle armor.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Drive me closer I want to hit them with my sword!

that really says it all. The only reason we don't have bigger weapons is we don't need them. if we were to face space marines using nothing but close combat we could make an infantry gun that would easilly down them. As seen in the AA12 miniature grenades are possible, which would make miniature shaped charges possible as well to some extent. and those would eat a marine alive.

you said you worked on the XM25 didn't you?

The US Military would never mass field an infantry weapon system with a ammunition cost so high. Our currently level of technology is great at penetrating armor, if that armor is ceramic and kevlar. Not solid Adamantium plate. For all we know a 105mm Depleted Uranium Sabot would stop cold upon hitting Adamantium.

Which isn't all that surprising, considering FMJ bullets of rifle caliber can do something quite similar as far as penetration goes.

What range was that taken at by the way?

In the universe that is 40k Power Weapons regardless of what form they are in are the most destructive man portable weapons out there.

yeah but that's the 40k universe where such tactics are still valid

Well one of my co-workers designed one of the rounds intended for that... he says it can penetrate 1.5" steel plate with a .4" hole on the rear side. I don't think thats "overhyped." Most infantry armored transports are .5" to 1" hardened aluminum, so it can penetrate vehicle armor.

WHOLY MOTHER OF COPPER!!! is the grenade round already a shaped charge?

The US Military would never mass field an infantry weapon system with a ammunition cost so high. Our currently level of technology is great at penetrating armor, if that armor is ceramic and kevlar. Not solid Adamantium plate. For all we know a 105mm Depleted Uranium Sabot would stop cold upon hitting Adamantium.

I'm sure if they faced an enemy where it was deemed nescessary they would. also I can't remember which of the imperial armor books says it but they give the equivalent of land raider armor as 305mm?? or RHA. Not sure on the exact equivalent I'll have to look it up, it's been a while.

If we were hit by an enemy that was far enough ahead of us to require a special round to take out. Then we would loose due to our inability to field the system quickly.

The US army just started fielding 30,000 XM25s. So I wouldn't say its not impossible.

You have to remember there was a time when muskets were the normal weapon and rifles were considered too expensive to field in numbers... then rifles became the common weapons and infantry automatic weapons were invented but were considered too expensive for every man... now automatic rifles are the standard weapon and the XM25 and other grenade launchers are the specialized weapon considered too expensive to field enmasse. The trend is such that better technology always starts as a specialized weapon that gains wider use and is eventually modified and adapted to even wider use. The XM25 and AA12 are the first steps towards the eventual adoption of grenade based technologies by utilizing ammunition with a variaty of warheads. A third program is DARPA's high calibre target correcting round for a sniper rifle, which will also take advantage of a warhead... I think it should be called the Exitus if you ask me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
What range was that taken at by the way?

Because its an impact detonated explosive it doesn't really matter how far away its fired. I imagine like any other shotgun slug, from the stand point of just its mass effectively taking down the target 100 yards away; but that doesn't take into consideration the explosive.

A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

aka_mythos wrote: A third program is DARPA's high calibre target correcting round for a sniper rifle, which will also take advantage of a warhead... I think it should be called the Exitus if you ask me.

Nope, the name is to cool, more then likely it will be givin an M designation. Lol

Army wide adoption takes a long time, costs need to be reduced, ammo needs to be reworked for reliability reasons...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I didn't ask you

A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

Its Adamantium Baby!

And flak armor is better than that 1.5" of forged steel plate. Fun times!

Material Science is one of the few areas in 40k where you can't draw any conclusions from modern technology.

Melissia wrote:A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

not really a LOT of the orks body is left un protected. if I have an adamantium helmet it's not going to save me from a shot to the chest. and vice versa


also found the equivalents of adamantium.

93mm Adam = 365mm Steel
3.6 in Adam = 14.37 in Steel

On top of new Materials, you also have shielding and pshycic abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:

Melissia wrote:A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

not really a LOT of the orks body is left un protected. if I have an adamantium helmet it's not going to save me from a shot to the chest. and vice versa


also found the equivalents of adamantium.

93mm Adam = 365mm Steel
3.6 in Adam = 14.37 in Steel

There are alot of places you can shoot an Orc without really actually hurting him. He is a giant mushroom man after all.

Melissia wrote:A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

Except they only wear a few pieces... all the exposed green is what makes it 6+... ork nobz in full suits of 1.5" steel heavy armor are 4+ saves.

It would be something like a Rng24 Str3 AP4 Rapid Fire.

Its a high temperature thermal jet that literally melts through the steel before the primary charge explodes.

Catyrpelius wrote:
Army wide adoption takes a long time, costs need to be reduced, ammo needs to be reworked for reliability reasons...

The biggest driving force is that even with a dedicated facility churning out 5.56 ammo at a rate of millions of rounds a day we still have to purchase 40% of ammunition from foriegn allies and commercial sources. Its a demand for reliable lethality, in Vietnam it took an average of 10,000 rounds per enemy kill. The goal is to push the metric closer to one to one, rounds fired to enemy kills... not necessarily to achieve that ratio but to get closer to it. I don't think we'll see these sorts of weapons as fully automatic weapons any time soon and that machine guns and other fire suppression weapons will still benefit from low cost ammunition.

gendoikari87 wrote:

that really says it all. The only reason we don't have bigger weapons is we don't need them. if we were to face space marines using nothing but close combat we could make an infantry gun that would easilly down them.

Then they bring in the Titans or Orbital Bombard us or chuck a few vortex grenades ... Peeeeooowwww KABLOOEEEY.

Orks don't need weapons, they can kill Titans with a Headbutt

Catyrpelius wrote: He is a giant mushroom man after all.

The Imperium is doing it all wrong, just get loads of weed killer loads and loads, or failing that - you have a solution to widespread hunger

Well thats more out of the Orks metaphysical mind over matter.

Maybe if I belive I'm an Ork hard enough I'll turn into pure awsome!

I had some free time so I decided to do the drag equations for a bolter shell assuming the kicker charge is powerful enough to accelerate it to mach 1

F=(1/2)*(1.25kg/m^3)*(343 m/s)^2*(.1)*(.00223 M^2)=16 newtons

B6 Model Rocket motors, that's civilian model rockets of almost exactly the same size produce about 30 newtons of force about twice that of the air drag at mach one.

Turning around and using the equation to solve for the maximum muzzel velocity for which the modern civilian rocket would not overcome air drag we get about 463m/s

Source for model rocket thrust

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktengperf.html

and that's with a thick card board sleeve taking up a lot of the room the propellant could use, and with modern civilian grade rockets.

By comparison a 5.56mm travels at about 960m/s and about 720m/s for a 7.62 Russian and that's with several times the energy space capacity for the main charge a longer barre and much less mass.

You realize that modern bullets are often 1200-1500 m/s, right?

This is not a modern bullet, and there's no guarantee it doesn't go magnitudes faster.

Melissia wrote:You realize that modern bullets are often 1200-1500 m/s, right?

This is not a modern bullet, and there's no guarantee it doesn't go magnitudes faster.

Fail melissa, modern bullets travel between 400m/s and 1000, and the thing limiting it to not going any faster is the physics behind firearms. I have proven you wrong scientifically I wash my hands of you. good bye.

Melissia wrote:And then the helmet deflects the AA12 because it's an overhyped piece of gak

Also, getting headshots on moving targets in close combat is far harder than you think it is.

Outside of magic (aka power weaponry), under no circumstances is there a situation where comeone with a pointy stick is going to outpenetrate someone with a range weapon. Unless one side has all power weapons/claws, which they gneerally don't the guys with the guns/burners/phasers/wins.

Its simple physics and math and why armor and pointy sticks went away in the first place. Frankly, worse to worse the guys with the guys get RPGs / 40K equivalent and go tank hunting against the armored freaks.

True, but chainswords are the uber cool and the rule of cool takes over in 40k tactics.

And such things do exist. And chainswords probably also meet that definition as well, as they're supposedly able to cut through many forms of armor. But the main reason that power armor works so well in 40k is its rarity, most forces just aren't equipped to deal with it.

gendoikari87 wrote:True, but chainswords are the uber cool and the rule of cool takes over in 40k tactics.

Meh chainswords are stupid, unless wielded by Orks.

Orks, natures ultimate post apocayptic road warrior, cutting down necrons and everything else since 69,000,000 BC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:And such things do exist. And chainswords probably also meet that definition as well, as they're supposedly able to cut through many forms of armor. But the main reason that power armor works so well in 40k is its rarity, most forces just aren't equipped to deal with it.

At the ernd of the day its still slower and less kinetic energy than a bang stick. Not to mention the kick back on a chainsword would likely kill you very quickly.

From a chart I now have hanging on my wall.

Cartridge (Wb + type) MV (fps)
.17 Rem. (25 SpHP) 4040
.204 Ruger (32 BTSP) 4225
.218 Bee (46 HP) 2760
.219 Zipper (55 SP) 3400
.22 Hornet (45 Sp) 2690
.221 Fireball (50 SpBT) 2995
.22 PPC (52 HPBT) 3400
.222 Rem. (50 Sp) 3140
.223 Rem. (45 SpHP) 3550
.223 Rem. (50 SpHP) 3300
.223 Rem. (55 Sp) 3240
.223 Rem. (64 Sp) 3090
5.6x50 Mag. (50 SP) 3600
5.6x50R Mag. (55 SP) 3300
.225 Win. (55 Sp) 3570
.22-250 Rem. (45 SpHP) 4000
.22-250 Rem. (55 Sp) 3680
.22-250 Rem. (60 Sp) 3500
.224 Wby. Mag. (55 Sp) 3650
.220 Swift (55 SpBT) 3800
.223 WSSM (55 SpBT) 3850
5.6x57 RWS (60 Sp) 3600
6mm BR Rem. (100 Sp) 2550
6mm PPC (68 SpHP) 3100
.243 Win. (80 Sp) 3350
.243 Win. (90 BT) 3300
.243 Win. (95 SST) 3100
.243 Win. (100 Sp) 2960
.243 Win. (105 Sp) 2900
6mm Rem. (80 Sp) 3470
6mm Rem. (100 Sp) 3100
.243 WSSM (55 SpBT) 4060
.243 WSSM (100 Sp) 3110
6x62 Freres (100 SP) 3300
.240 Wby. Mag. (100 Sp) 3406
.244 H&H Mag. (100 Sp) 3500
.25-20 (86 FP) 1460
.256 Win. Mag. (60 FP) 2800
.25 Rem. (100 RN) 2330
.25-35 (117 FP) 2230
.250 Savage (100 Sp) 2820
.257 Roberts (100 BT) 3100
.257 Roberts (117 SST) 2940
.257 Roberts (120 Sp) 2780
.257 Roberts (120 Sp) 2800
.257 Rob. Imp. (117 BTSP) 2900
.25 WSSM (120 Sp) 2834
.25 WSSM (120 Sp) 2990
.25-06 Rem. (100 Sp) 3230
.25-06 Rem. (120 Sp) 2990
.257 Wby. Mag. (87 SP) 3700
.257 Wby. Mag. (100 SP) 3602
.257 Wby. Mag. (120 Sp) 3305
6.5mm Grendel (120 BT) 2600
6.5x50 Jap. (156 Sp) 2067
6.5x52 Carcano (156 Sp) 2428
6.5x54 M-S (140 SP) 2400
6.5x55 SE (100 SP) 3100
6.5x55 SE (129 SP) 2700
6.5x55 SE (129 SP) 2770
6.5x55 SE (140 Sp) 2600
6.5x55 SE (140 SP) 2740
.260 Rem. (120 Sp) 2890
.260 Rem. (140 Sp) 2750
6.5x57 (140 SP) 2700
6.5-284 (140 Sp) 2953
6.5mm-06 (140 Sp) 2953
6.5mm Rem. Mag. (120 Sp) 3210
6.5mm Rem. Mag. (129 SP) 3100
6.5x65 RWS (129 BTSP) 3200
6.5x65R RWS (100 SP) 3400
6.5x68 S (140 Sp) 2990
.264 Win. Mag. (140 Sp) 3030
6.8mm Rem. SPC (100 SP) 3000
6.8mm Rem. SPC (115 Sp) 2625
6.8mm Rem. SPC (120 BT) 2700
.270 Win. (130 Sp) 3060
.270 Win. (140 Sp) 3100
.270 Win. (150 Sp) 2850
.270 WSM (130 SpBT) 3275
.270 WSM (150 Sp) 3150
.270 Wby. Mag. (130 Sp) 3375
.270 Wby. Mag. (150 Sp) 3245
7x33 Sako (78 RN) 2430
7-30 Waters (120 FP) 2700
7x57 Mauser (140 Sp) 2660
7x57 Mauser (150 Sp) 2690
7mm-08 Rem. (120 SpHP) 3000
7mm-08 Rem. (140 Sp) 2860
7x64 Brenneke (154 Sp) 2821
7x65R (170 Sp) 2625
.284 Win. (150 Sp) 2860
.280 Rem. (140 Sp) 3000
.280 Rem. (160 Sp) 2890
7mm Rem. SAUM (150 Sp) 3110
7mm WSM (150 Sp) 3200
.275 H&H Mag. (160 Sp) 2700
.275 H&H Mag. (160 Sp) 3050
7x61 S&H Mag. (154 SP) 3000
7mm Rem. Mag. (150 SpBT) 3110
7mm Rem. Mag. (175 Sp) 2860
7mm Wby. Mag. (150 SpBT) 3300
7mm Wby. Mag. (160 Sp) 3200
7mm STW (160 SpBT) 3200
7mm Ultra Mag (160 Sp) 3200
7.5x54 MAS (150 SP) 2500
7.5x55 Swiss (180 Sp) 2651
.30 Carbine (110 RN) 1990
.30 Rem. (170 RN) 2120
.30-30 Win. (150 FP) 2390
.30-30 Win. (160 EVO) 2400
.30-30 Win. (150 FP) 2480
.30-30 Win. (170 FP) 2200
.300 Sav. (150 Sp) 2630
.300 Sav. (180 Sp) 2350
.307 Win. (180 FP) 2435
.307 Win. (180 FP) 2510
.308 Marlin (160 EVO) 2660
.30-40 Krag (180 Sp) 2430
7.62x54R (150 SP) 2700
.308 Win. (150 Sp) 2820
.308 Win. (165 BTSP) 2685
.308 Win. (165 BTSP) 2870
.308 Win. (180 Sp) 2620
.30-06 Spfd. (150 Sp) 2910
.30-06 Spfd. (165 PSP) 2800
.30-06 Spfd. (165 BTSP) 3015
.30-06 Spfd. (180 Sp) 2700
.30R Blaser (180 SP) 2800
.300 Rem. SAUM (150 Sp) 3200
.300 Rem. SAUM (180 Sp) 2960
.300 WSM (150 Sp) 3300
.300 WSM (180 Sp) 2970
.308 Norma Mag. (180 Sp) 2953
.300 Win. Mag. (150 Sp) 3290
.300 Win. Mag. (180 Sp) 2960
.300 H&H. Mag. (180 Sp) 2880
.300 Wby. Mag. (180 Sp) 3240
.300 Ultra Mag (180 Sp) 3250
.30-378 Wby. (200 Sp) 3160
7.62x39 (125 Sp) 2365
7.65x53 (180 Sp) 2592
.303 Savage (190 RN) 1890
.303 British (150 SP) 2830
.303 British (180 Sp) 2460
7.7x58 Jap. (180 Sp) 2493
.318 W-R (180 RN) 2700
.32-20 (100 FP) 1210
.32 Rem. (170 RN) 2120
.32 Spec. (170 FP) 2250
8x56 M-S (170 RN) 2260
8x57 JS (150 SP) 2800
8mm-06 (150 SP) 2900
.325 WSM (200 Sp) 2875
8x68 S (150 SP) 3300
8x68 S (200 Sp) 2950
8x68 S (220 SP) 2800
8mm Rem. Mag. (200 Sp) 2900
8mm Rem. Mag. (200 Sp) 3000
.33 Win. (200 FP) 2200
.338 Federal (180 BT) 2830
.338 Federal (200 Sp) 2400
.338 Federal (210 NP) 2630
.338-06 (200 Sp) 2750
.338 Win. Mag. (200 Sp) 2950
.338 Win. Mag. (225 Sp) 2780
.338 Win. Mag. (250 Sp) 2650
.340 Wby. Mag. (250 Sp) 2941
.338 Ultra Mag (250 Sp) 2860
.338 Lapua (250 SP) 2800
.338-378 Wby. (250 Sp) 3060
.348 Win. (200 FP) 2520
.357 Mag. (158 FP) 1830
.357 Mag. (180 HP) 1550
.35 Rem. (200 RN) 2080
.35 Win. (250 RN) 2195
.356 Win. (200 FP) 2460
.358 Win. (200 Sp) 2490
.35 Whelen (200 Sp) 2675
.35 Whelen (225 NP) 2525
.35 Whelen (250 Sp) 2400
.35 Whelen (250 NP) 2500
.350 Rem. Mag. (200 PSP) 2775
.350 Rem. Mag. (225 NP) 2600
.350 Rem. Mag. (225 NP) 2700
.350 Rem. Mag. (250 SP) 2500
.350 Rem. Mag. (250 NP) 2570
.358 Norma Mag. (250 Sp) 2723
.358 STA (275 RN) 2850
9.3x53R (256 RN) 2330
9.3x57 (286 Sp) 2067
9.3x62 (286 SpBT) 2362
9.3x64 (286 RN) 2700
9.3x74R (286 Sp) 2362
.375 Win. (200 FP) 2200
.375 H&H Mag. (270 Sp) 2690
.375 H&H Mag. (300 Sp) 2530
.375 Wby. Mag. (300 Sp) 2800
.375 Ultra Mag (300 Sp) 2760
.376 Steyr (270 SP) 2600
.378 Wby. Mag. (270 SP) 3180
.38-40 Win. (180 FP) 1160
.38-55 Win. (255 FP) 1320
.450-400 3" (400 RN) 2150
.400 H&H Mag. (400 RN) 2375
.404 Jeffery (400 RN) 2150
.405 Win. (300 FP) 2200
.416 Rem. Mag. (400 Sp) 2400
.416 Rigby (400 RN) 2370
.416 Wby. Mag. (400 RN) 2700
.44-40 Win. (200 FP) 1190
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 FP) 1760
.44 Rem. Mag. (275 HP) 1580
.444 Marlin (240 FP) 2350
.444 Marlin (265 FP) 2335
.450 Marlin (350 FP) 2100
.45-70 (300 HP) 1810
.45-70 (405 FP) 1330
.450 NE (465 RN) 2190
.458 Win. Mag. (350 RN) 2470
.458 Win. Mag. (450 SSp) 2083
.458 Win. Mag. (500 RN) 2090
.458 Lott (500 RN) 2300
.460 Wby. Mag. (500 RN) 2600
.470 NE (500 RN) 2150
.500 NE (570 RN) 2150
.50 BMG (750 SpBT) 2750
.600 NE (900 RN) 1950

Frazzled wrote:At the ernd of the day its still slower and less kinetic energy than a bang stick. Not to mention the kick back on a chainsword would likely kill you very quickly.

That's why it has a cover on the reverse edge. It's really intended to be a two-handed weapon, and you push down on the cover to add more force to it. Not like anyone uses it that way.

It may have less kinetic energy, but close combat weapons can actually cause far deeper wounds than a bullet.

For example, if I were to use an axe and slice your gut open from hip to hip, compared to firing a bullet into the gut, which one do you think would be a bigger emergency?

Catyrpelius wrote:From a chart I now have hanging on my wall.

Cartridge (Wb + type) MV (fps)
.17 Rem. (25 SpHP) 4040
.204 Ruger (32 BTSP) 4225
.218 Bee (46 HP) 2760
.219 Zipper (55 SP) 3400
.22 Hornet (45 Sp) 2690
.221 Fireball (50 SpBT) 2995
.22 PPC (52 HPBT) 3400
.222 Rem. (50 Sp) 3140
.223 Rem. (45 SpHP) 3550
.223 Rem. (50 SpHP) 3300
.223 Rem. (55 Sp) 3240
.223 Rem. (64 Sp) 3090
5.6x50 Mag. (50 SP) 3600
5.6x50R Mag. (55 SP) 3300
.225 Win. (55 Sp) 3570
.22-250 Rem. (45 SpHP) 4000
.22-250 Rem. (55 Sp) 3680
.22-250 Rem. (60 Sp) 3500
.224 Wby. Mag. (55 Sp) 3650
.220 Swift (55 SpBT) 3800
.223 WSSM (55 SpBT) 3850
5.6x57 RWS (60 Sp) 3600
6mm BR Rem. (100 Sp) 2550
6mm PPC (68 SpHP) 3100
.243 Win. (80 Sp) 3350
.243 Win. (90 BT) 3300
.243 Win. (95 SST) 3100
.243 Win. (100 Sp) 2960
.243 Win. (105 Sp) 2900
6mm Rem. (80 Sp) 3470
6mm Rem. (100 Sp) 3100
.243 WSSM (55 SpBT) 4060
.243 WSSM (100 Sp) 3110
6x62 Freres (100 SP) 3300
.240 Wby. Mag. (100 Sp) 3406
.244 H&H Mag. (100 Sp) 3500
.25-20 (86 FP) 1460
.256 Win. Mag. (60 FP) 2800
.25 Rem. (100 RN) 2330
.25-35 (117 FP) 2230
.250 Savage (100 Sp) 2820
.257 Roberts (100 BT) 3100
.257 Roberts (117 SST) 2940
.257 Roberts (120 Sp) 2780
.257 Roberts (120 Sp) 2800
.257 Rob. Imp. (117 BTSP) 2900
.25 WSSM (120 Sp) 2834
.25 WSSM (120 Sp) 2990
.25-06 Rem. (100 Sp) 3230
.25-06 Rem. (120 Sp) 2990
.257 Wby. Mag. (87 SP) 3700
.257 Wby. Mag. (100 SP) 3602
.257 Wby. Mag. (120 Sp) 3305
6.5mm Grendel (120 BT) 2600
6.5x50 Jap. (156 Sp) 2067
6.5x52 Carcano (156 Sp) 2428
6.5x54 M-S (140 SP) 2400
6.5x55 SE (100 SP) 3100
6.5x55 SE (129 SP) 2700
6.5x55 SE (129 SP) 2770
6.5x55 SE (140 Sp) 2600
6.5x55 SE (140 SP) 2740
.260 Rem. (120 Sp) 2890
.260 Rem. (140 Sp) 2750
6.5x57 (140 SP) 2700
6.5-284 (140 Sp) 2953
6.5mm-06 (140 Sp) 2953
6.5mm Rem. Mag. (120 Sp) 3210
6.5mm Rem. Mag. (129 SP) 3100
6.5x65 RWS (129 BTSP) 3200
6.5x65R RWS (100 SP) 3400
6.5x68 S (140 Sp) 2990
.264 Win. Mag. (140 Sp) 3030
6.8mm Rem. SPC (100 SP) 3000
6.8mm Rem. SPC (115 Sp) 2625
6.8mm Rem. SPC (120 BT) 2700
.270 Win. (130 Sp) 3060
.270 Win. (140 Sp) 3100
.270 Win. (150 Sp) 2850
.270 WSM (130 SpBT) 3275
.270 WSM (150 Sp) 3150
.270 Wby. Mag. (130 Sp) 3375
.270 Wby. Mag. (150 Sp) 3245
7x33 Sako (78 RN) 2430
7-30 Waters (120 FP) 2700
7x57 Mauser (140 Sp) 2660
7x57 Mauser (150 Sp) 2690
7mm-08 Rem. (120 SpHP) 3000
7mm-08 Rem. (140 Sp) 2860
7x64 Brenneke (154 Sp) 2821
7x65R (170 Sp) 2625
.284 Win. (150 Sp) 2860
.280 Rem. (140 Sp) 3000
.280 Rem. (160 Sp) 2890
7mm Rem. SAUM (150 Sp) 3110
7mm WSM (150 Sp) 3200
.275 H&H Mag. (160 Sp) 2700
.275 H&H Mag. (160 Sp) 3050
7x61 S&H Mag. (154 SP) 3000
7mm Rem. Mag. (150 SpBT) 3110
7mm Rem. Mag. (175 Sp) 2860
7mm Wby. Mag. (150 SpBT) 3300
7mm Wby. Mag. (160 Sp) 3200
7mm STW (160 SpBT) 3200
7mm Ultra Mag (160 Sp) 3200
7.5x54 MAS (150 SP) 2500
7.5x55 Swiss (180 Sp) 2651
.30 Carbine (110 RN) 1990
.30 Rem. (170 RN) 2120
.30-30 Win. (150 FP) 2390
.30-30 Win. (160 EVO) 2400
.30-30 Win. (150 FP) 2480
.30-30 Win. (170 FP) 2200
.300 Sav. (150 Sp) 2630
.300 Sav. (180 Sp) 2350
.307 Win. (180 FP) 2435
.307 Win. (180 FP) 2510
.308 Marlin (160 EVO) 2660
.30-40 Krag (180 Sp) 2430
7.62x54R (150 SP) 2700
.308 Win. (150 Sp) 2820
.308 Win. (165 BTSP) 2685
.308 Win. (165 BTSP) 2870
.308 Win. (180 Sp) 2620
.30-06 Spfd. (150 Sp) 2910
.30-06 Spfd. (165 PSP) 2800
.30-06 Spfd. (165 BTSP) 3015
.30-06 Spfd. (180 Sp) 2700
.30R Blaser (180 SP) 2800
.300 Rem. SAUM (150 Sp) 3200
.300 Rem. SAUM (180 Sp) 2960
.300 WSM (150 Sp) 3300
.300 WSM (180 Sp) 2970
.308 Norma Mag. (180 Sp) 2953
.300 Win. Mag. (150 Sp) 3290
.300 Win. Mag. (180 Sp) 2960
.300 H&H. Mag. (180 Sp) 2880
.300 Wby. Mag. (180 Sp) 3240
.300 Ultra Mag (180 Sp) 3250
.30-378 Wby. (200 Sp) 3160
7.62x39 (125 Sp) 2365
7.65x53 (180 Sp) 2592
.303 Savage (190 RN) 1890
.303 British (150 SP) 2830
.303 British (180 Sp) 2460
7.7x58 Jap. (180 Sp) 2493
.318 W-R (180 RN) 2700
.32-20 (100 FP) 1210
.32 Rem. (170 RN) 2120
.32 Spec. (170 FP) 2250
8x56 M-S (170 RN) 2260
8x57 JS (150 SP) 2800
8mm-06 (150 SP) 2900
.325 WSM (200 Sp) 2875
8x68 S (150 SP) 3300
8x68 S (200 Sp) 2950
8x68 S (220 SP) 2800
8mm Rem. Mag. (200 Sp) 2900
8mm Rem. Mag. (200 Sp) 3000
.33 Win. (200 FP) 2200
.338 Federal (180 BT) 2830
.338 Federal (200 Sp) 2400
.338 Federal (210 NP) 2630
.338-06 (200 Sp) 2750
.338 Win. Mag. (200 Sp) 2950
.338 Win. Mag. (225 Sp) 2780
.338 Win. Mag. (250 Sp) 2650
.340 Wby. Mag. (250 Sp) 2941
.338 Ultra Mag (250 Sp) 2860
.338 Lapua (250 SP) 2800
.338-378 Wby. (250 Sp) 3060
.348 Win. (200 FP) 2520
.357 Mag. (158 FP) 1830
.357 Mag. (180 HP) 1550
.35 Rem. (200 RN) 2080
.35 Win. (250 RN) 2195
.356 Win. (200 FP) 2460
.358 Win. (200 Sp) 2490
.35 Whelen (200 Sp) 2675
.35 Whelen (225 NP) 2525
.35 Whelen (250 Sp) 2400
.35 Whelen (250 NP) 2500
.350 Rem. Mag. (200 PSP) 2775
.350 Rem. Mag. (225 NP) 2600
.350 Rem. Mag. (225 NP) 2700
.350 Rem. Mag. (250 SP) 2500
.350 Rem. Mag. (250 NP) 2570
.358 Norma Mag. (250 Sp) 2723
.358 STA (275 RN) 2850
9.3x53R (256 RN) 2330
9.3x57 (286 Sp) 2067
9.3x62 (286 SpBT) 2362
9.3x64 (286 RN) 2700
9.3x74R (286 Sp) 2362
.375 Win. (200 FP) 2200
.375 H&H Mag. (270 Sp) 2690
.375 H&H Mag. (300 Sp) 2530
.375 Wby. Mag. (300 Sp) 2800
.375 Ultra Mag (300 Sp) 2760
.376 Steyr (270 SP) 2600
.378 Wby. Mag. (270 SP) 3180
.38-40 Win. (180 FP) 1160
.38-55 Win. (255 FP) 1320
.450-400 3" (400 RN) 2150
.400 H&H Mag. (400 RN) 2375
.404 Jeffery (400 RN) 2150
.405 Win. (300 FP) 2200
.416 Rem. Mag. (400 Sp) 2400
.416 Rigby (400 RN) 2370
.416 Wby. Mag. (400 RN) 2700
.44-40 Win. (200 FP) 1190
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 FP) 1760
.44 Rem. Mag. (275 HP) 1580
.444 Marlin (240 FP) 2350
.444 Marlin (265 FP) 2335
.450 Marlin (350 FP) 2100
.45-70 (300 HP) 1810
.45-70 (405 FP) 1330
.450 NE (465 RN) 2190
.458 Win. Mag. (350 RN) 2470
.458 Win. Mag. (450 SSp) 2083
.458 Win. Mag. (500 RN) 2090
.458 Lott (500 RN) 2300
.460 Wby. Mag. (500 RN) 2600
.470 NE (500 RN) 2150
.500 NE (570 RN) 2150
.50 BMG (750 SpBT) 2750
.600 NE (900 RN) 1950

you got that in M/S I need something to do this christmas break and calculating bullet drops at a half mile sounds fun. Do I need them in M/S no, but I'm a physicist and we use metric, like I used above.