This has been bugging the hell out of me. I mean why?

For those who don't know what I am talking about here is a reference pic.



I mean I have yet to see any version of a bolter with a stock.





Now for bolt pistols it makes more sense ( even if they hold it one handed, yay 40K logic )

But then why doe Las guns have stocks?





Was there a specific reasons, or was it one of those things that was originally just put in the game without any forehand knowledge (like how the treads on a land raider are backwards), that eventually just became iconic? Is because Space Marines are so strong, and have implants or something that render them mute? I mean I get that would help, but it would still make sens for them to have a stock.I doubt its a matter of weight for a Space marine if it is why not just a skeleton stock. If its a matter of compactness then why go with a folding stock, collapsible stock, or folding collapsible stock? I realize at the end of the day its no big deal, and that I am just nit picking. I just want to know if there is an official reasons, or what dakka thinks of it.

Bolters originally had stocks in earlier versions.

I believe you will find it comes down to two reasons.
One, they don't need them. Space Marines are strong enough and their armor is cool enough that recoil is not really an issue.
Two, rule of cool. It is cooler not to have a stock.

Why would an 8 foot tall demigod in ancient armor that can survive just about anything short of an orbital bombardment need a stock? When have you ever heard of a marine saying "Ow, that recoil hurt my shoulder."? Plus, where would they even hold the stock? I mean, just look how huge their pauldrons are. It just wouldn't fit.

 pretre wrote:
Bolters originally had stocks in earlier versions.

I believe you will find it comes down to two reasons.
One, they don't need them. Space Marines are strong enough and their armor is cool enough that recoil is not really an issue.
Two, rule of cool. It is cooler not to have a stock.

Its no just for recoil though. It provides a 3 large point of contact to your body (besides just your hands). Then again know 40K and how impractically awesome it is. You are most likely right

Sure, sure. Also keep in mind that SM have targeters and such so that they don't have to line up their shots.

Lasguns have stocks to help with aim.
Some Boltguns used to have stocks, but newer models don't.
Since old fluff on a boltgun was that the bolt was a caseless mini-rocket, recoil wasn't much of an issue. Then GW started producing higher quality models with shell casings that look cool, and the fluff changed.

-Matt

Maybe the pauldrons are big enough to act as a stock? Yeah, take that logic.

As above, plus the Bolter has built in recoil dampners to make the recoil a non-issue(even for non-space marines)

It also makes the bolter smaller, making it more maneuverable.

The bolter is a submachine gun. Many modern submachine guns don't have stocks, or the stocks are optional/folding.

 pretre wrote:
Bolters originally had stocks in earlier versions.

I believe you will find it comes down to two reasons.
One, they don't need them. Space Marines are strong enough and their armor is cool enough that recoil is not really an issue.
Two, rule of cool. It is cooler not to have a stock.

Exactly. Its done for reasons of badassery.

When you have exploding bullets, you don't need to look down sights.

I'd guess it's because a bolter round holds just enough charge to cycle the action and ignite the internal rocket engine within the round. Couple that with being designed to be wielded by transhuman users in power armor and managing recoil becomes unnecessary.

Or it just looks badass. I'd rather have telescoping stocks, but I'd also rather see my Marines have angled foregrips, bayonet lugs and Redi-mags on their combat carbines.

I'd also love to see widespread issue of the Stalker Pattern bolter.

Bolters are built to be fired from the Hip while charging into the enemy. The Space Marine puts one shoulder forward to absorb shots while holding the bolter at their side to soften the enemy. Once he's close enough, out comes the combat knife or chainsword, and suddenly you've got a whole new problem.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
I'd guess it's because a bolter round holds just enough charge to cycle the action and ignite the internal rocket engine within the round.

Not correct. The bolter still has the explosive charge of a normal bullet to propel it out of the barrel to lethal speed. The rocket activates after exit and further increases the speed and killing power. The gun still has recoil befitting its .75 caliber.

I'm thinking Marines can lock some joints in their armor to keep a bolter on-target, recoil probably isn't a very big issue for them.

The Space Marines have servo assisted power armor. The stock isn't really needed since they have less need for bone and muscle support for the weapon.

The Scouts should have stocks though.

GW designs most things best on asetetic and not practicality. Botlers are known for huge recoil and a stock would benefit them more then most other weapons.

In short: GW gunna GW.

Take into account some Marines fire bolters one-handed. Not much recoil there.

Then again, a rememberancer in an early HH book broke his arm firing a bolt pistol. So huge recoil for us, barely anything for a Mahreen.

Perhaps a better question would be why do the lasguns have stocks. Would they even have recoil?

Ivan Issaccs wrote:
Perhaps a better question would be why do the lasguns have stocks. Would they even have recoil?

My thoughts exactly.....help with aiming I suppose........beat people to death with....

Well their shoulders are massive in armor I doubt they could even hold a gun at shoulder.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Take into account some Marines fire bolters one-handed. Not much recoil there.

Then again, a rememberancer in an early HH book broke his arm firing a bolt pistol. So huge recoil for us, barely anything for a Mahreen.

I think I know the book your talking about (don't remember the title though) and I thought that he almost broke his wrist because he was old and not trained to fire weapons in general. Also bolt pistols are used by the IG a lot and in the codex you can give Stroom troopers Boltguns.

As for the issue of no stock Space marine strength, though IMHO it comes down to recoil dampners which allow normal humans to use them as well (though not as good). Though it is mainly a Space marine weapon.

Lasguns have stocks to help Guardsmen aim and keep their gun steady, even though there shouldn't be any recoil.

A Space Marine has no need of a stock on a bolter when his powered armor and augmented strength have no problem keeping steady and his helmet has taargeting software that assists aim.

Ivan Issaccs wrote:
Perhaps a better question would be why do the lasguns have stocks. Would they even have recoil?

Possibly, yes.

While there's a general assumption that laser weapons would have no recoil, it comes down (at least in the theoretical prototype designs that are floating around these days) to how the laser beam is generated.

Lasers that use a gas chamber (gas is compressed and suddenly accelerated in a small chamber... has something to do with focusing the beam, but it's been a while since I read the science behind it) can theoretically have significant recoil.

 insaniak wrote:

Ivan Issaccs wrote:
Perhaps a better question would be why do the lasguns have stocks. Would they even have recoil?

Possibly, yes.

While there's a general assumption that laser weapons would have no recoil, it comes down (at least in the theoretical prototype designs that are floating around these days) to how the laser beam is generated.

Lasers that use a gas chamber (gas is compressed and suddenly accelerated in a small chamber... has something to do with focusing the beam, but it's been a while since I read the science behind it) can theoretically have significant recoil.

You want a stock on a gun. Trust me if you were to shoot a gun like how they the Space Marines do it you wouldn't hit jack gak. Even without recoil, it just provides an extra point of contact on the gun. Hell there is a reason they are now using . Slanted angled for grips, rather than a magwell grip and regular slanted for girp. In that it gives you a better way to push the rifle stock into your shoulder. So that you have less muzzle wobble and more control.



But yeah you guys are right. GW does cuz it looks cool.

Ivan Issaccs wrote:
Perhaps a better question would be why do the lasguns have stocks. Would they even have recoil?

The stock isn't just for recoil. It provides a way for you to shoulder the weapon to assist with aiming.

Given how gigantic the las rifle is, that's pretty important.

 Makarov wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Ivan Issaccs wrote:
Perhaps a better question would be why do the lasguns have stocks. Would they even have recoil?

Possibly, yes.

While there's a general assumption that laser weapons would have no recoil, it comes down (at least in the theoretical prototype designs that are floating around these days) to how the laser beam is generated.

Lasers that use a gas chamber (gas is compressed and suddenly accelerated in a small chamber... has something to do with focusing the beam, but it's been a while since I read the science behind it) can theoretically have significant recoil.

You want a stock on a gun. Trust me if you were to shoot a gun like how they the Space Marines do it you wouldn't hit jack gak. Even without recoil, it just provides an extra point of contact on the gun. Hell there is a reason they are now using . Slanted angled for grips, rather than a magwell grip and regular slanted for girp. In that it gives you a better way to push the rifle stock into your shoulder. So that you have less muzzle wobble and more control.



But yeah you guys are right. GW does cuz it looks cool.

You do know that the guns a marine wields are hooked up to his helmet's targeting system. So unless his helmet is destroyed he will have no reason to aim down the barrel. Due to his HUD he is already looking down the barrel.

Stocks do not seem necessary due to the low recoil of the weapon. The blast compensator seems to work on the same principle as a RL recoilless gun, plus bolt weapons are said to be quite heavy, and the heavier a gun is the less it is affected by recoil (as more kinetic energy is required to move the object - basic physics). This is actually why one of the easiest way to reduce recoil in real life guns is to add mercury weights.

Still, as has been mentioned before, stocks would help a lot with aiming. For the Space Marines, this may simply not be an option due to their massive shoulder pauldrons. And since Space Marines were (or so I think I read) the first troops to be issued bolt weapons, maybe it is the decline in technological knowledge that forbids the addition of such basic things to an existing pattern ("it offends the machine spirit!!1"). At least that is one potential excuse I could pull outta my arse.

Another theory: The more elite Imperial forces also seem to employ auto-senses linked with their guns, and since these are the most prominent users of bolt weaponry, perhaps the stock also isn't necessary because their equipment allows them to see what their gun is currently aimed at anyways, regardless of how it is held. In other words, firing from the hip and actually hitting something. Unless you wear power armour, your aim would still be disrupted by a high rate of fire, but you could always opt to simply use these guns on semi-auto.

Grey Templar wrote:

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:I'd guess it's because a bolter round holds just enough charge to cycle the action and ignite the internal rocket engine within the round.

Not correct. The bolter still has the explosive charge of a normal bullet to propel it out of the barrel to lethal speed. The rocket activates after exit and further increases the speed and killing power. The gun still has recoil befitting its .75 caliber.

Says who?
GW's 2E Wargear book mentions the first stage propellant pushing the projectile out of the barrel "at low velocity", before the rocket motor kicks in.
Granted, that is very open to interpretation, but in my opinion, a normal .75 round does not have a "low velocity".

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:I'd also love to see widespread issue of the Stalker Pattern bolter.

Bah. I'll never accept a standard bolter with a targeter + silencer attached to it suddenly morph into a whole new class of weapon.

d3m01iti0n wrote:Take into account some Marines fire bolters one-handed. Not much recoil there.
Then again, a rememberancer in an early HH book broke his arm firing a bolt pistol. So huge recoil for us, barely anything for a Mahreen.

Commissars seem to be able to use bolt pistols just fine ("promotions!"), and bolt pistols use the same ammo as bolters do.
Novels are novels. Don't the Primarchs in the HH series also change their hair colour all the time or something?

 Lynata wrote:
Commissars seem to be able to use bolt pistols just fine ("promotions!"), and bolt pistols use the same ammo as bolters do.

Commissars are also trained soldiers.

xSPYXEx wrote:Commissars are also trained soldiers.

A good point. There's right ways and wrong ways to handle a gun.
The latter may result in serious injury and a video on youtube.

Granted, in Necromunda, some few gangers are using bolt weapons as well (even heavy bolters .. alone ), but in their case I'd assume they just learn from experience out in the streets.

Space Marines have targeters from the year 40,000 in their helmets. They don't need 3 points of contact to help aim!

You want a stock on a gun. Trust me if you were to shoot a gun like how they the Space Marines do it you wouldn't hit jack gak. Even without recoil, it just provides an extra point of contact on the gun. Hell there is a reason they are now using . Slanted angled for grips, rather than a magwell grip and regular slanted for girp. In that it gives you a better way to push the rifle stock into your shoulder. So that you have less muzzle wobble and more control.

I'm pretty sure that the strength and stability of power armor would offset the lack of the "three points of contact" shoulder stock purpose. Even locking a gun into the three points of contact and current grip designs are only because normal human arms aren't strong enough to hold a heavy recoiling gun rock steady for aiming.

I;m willing to bet that power armor is actually OVERkill when factoring in the need for strength to hold a boltgun steady.

Which is ok since the extra strength and stability wasn't put there for a stable firing platform, its mearely a side benifit to the incredible protection and strength enhancement it gives to an already strong and durable super soldier.

Yup. You don't need a shoulder stock when your elbows and shoulders armor can lock perfectly in place to negate recoil (or at least are hugely stronger than the recoil of a boltgun, when a Space Marine can heft a Plasma Cannon), and you can fire from the hip when a targeting system in the helmet lets you see what you would see through a scope anyway, regardless of any way or direction you might hold the weapon.

Technically, in fluff terms, a Marine can fire one-handed around a corner, without ever exposing anything but the gun- and that's already current technology. the only limit is the strength of a person's arm/wrist.

Space marines having targeting software in their helmets" is not a sufficient counter-point. What of the [visorless] scout marine or the apparently numerous helmetless space marines? Or any other Imperial not equipped with such a helmet?

Bolter rounds are recoilless. There's not reason that they need to have a stock.

Of course, lasguns are recoilless as well, and they do. It's probably, as mentioned, to help the guardsmen aim the weapons better. Space marine aiming is taken care of by all of their fancy technology.

There is no fluff reason. The real answer comes from anyone who tried to put together the original multipiece metal/plastic MK7 marines. The bolter came with a stock but it really just got in the way while you were posing the mini. The shoulder pad and the stock never aligned right. I had to cut most of mine off.

Some of the old RT era metal guard and marines had stocks, but once they switched to plastic the tech at the time just made the stocks a problem for figure assembly. Even now most of the guard with stocks have the weapon molded into the arm.

 Vaerros wrote:
Space marines having targeting software in their helmets" is not a sufficient counter-point. What of the [visorless] scout marine or the apparently numerous helmetless space marines? Or any other Imperial not equipped with such a helmet?

They can still look down the gunsights. And with the excellent hand eye coordination of a space marine, not to mention the possability of bionic implants, firing from the hip will not be as inaccurate as a normal human would be.

 Ailaros wrote:
Bolter rounds are recoilless.

Since when? The low velocity charge to send it out of the barrel will still produce recoil. Even if it didn't have a low velocity charge, the rocket firing off in the chamber, with the exhaust expelled from the front of the barrel, would still cause some recoil.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Bolter rounds are recoilless.

Since when? The low velocity charge to send it out of the barrel will still produce recoil. Even if it didn't have a low velocity charge, the rocket firing off in the chamber, with the exhaust expelled from the front of the barrel, would still cause some recoil.

It's still going to have recoil, but maybe not much. Look at the aa-12. Very light recoil and that is an automatic shotgun. Even recoilless rifles have recoil, its just been dampened.

 Makarov wrote:
This has been bugging the hell out of me. I mean why?

Power armour renders a stock irrelevant. Essentially, the suit grips the handle so strongly that the entire suit becomes a part of the weapon. Or the weapon becomes a part of the suit. The weapon doesn't need a stock for stability or control any more than a weapon mounted on a vehicle does.

It seems to me like the bolters, especially the more recent ones, (especially the Forgeworld ones) are designed to look more like submachine guns rather than assault rifles, but that's just the way that it looks to me. The range at which the Space Marines tend to conduct their operations, especially in the background material, supports that I think. It may be a supply-side issue as well. I could definitely see some high ranking Adeptus Mechanicus number cruncher deciding that the biological sensory upgrades, plus the targeting arrays in the Marine's helmet, plus the targeting systems built into the bolter itself are enough redundancies that the minor additional benefit of the stock can be "safely eliminated with no statistical impact on effectiveness." That pound or so of material, multiplied by all the thousands and thousands of bolters produced by the Imperium, probably saved the Adeptus Mechanicus a ridiculous amount of supplies. (He probably got a promotion.) It's the kind of decision that looks good on paper even if it isn't really good in the field. And if you want realism in your ludicrous space-fantasy, then it doesn't get more realistic than soldiers having to put up with bureacratic ignorance.

Andrew1975 wrote:It's still going to have recoil, but maybe not much. Look at the aa-12. Very light recoil and that is an automatic shotgun.

Ya. I actually like the AA-12 comparison a lot myself. That weapon shoots slugs very close in size to bolter rounds (and which can explode!) on full auto, and it even almost looks like a boltgun. And the kicker is, you can supposedly shoot it with one hand no probs, or even dual wield them, thanks to the long spring preventing the internals from being kicked back with full force. I'm sure by now most people have seen FPSrussia's video, but just in case, here it is again.
Just as an example of what today's technology can do already, mind you. With bolt ammunition having its own rocket motor, I imagine the first stage propellant would be even softer, simply as it's not required to deliver the projectile's full velocity and kinetic force, but just give it a "kickstart" (to negate those very issues the real-life gyrojets suffered from).

With boltguns, I would imagine that shooting them one-handed would require power armour or bionics (or an Astartes, or Straken ), though ... otherwise you'll just screw up your aim. Not even just because of the recoil, but because the weapon's point of balance is before the hand, and I believe its heavy weight would make it difficult to hold it steady. Pistols on the other hand would be easy, so no problem there. At least that's my interpretation based on what I read so far.

 Lynata wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:It's still going to have recoil, but maybe not much. Look at the aa-12. Very light recoil and that is an automatic shotgun.

Ya. I actually like the AA-12 comparison a lot myself. That weapon shoots slugs very close in size to bolter rounds (and which can explode!) on full auto, and it even almost looks like a boltgun. And the kicker is, you can supposedly shoot it with one hand no probs, or even dual wield them, thanks to the long spring preventing the internals from being kicked back with full force. I'm sure by now most people have seen FPSrussia's video, but just in case, here it is again.
Just as an example of what today's technology can do already, mind you. With bolt ammunition having its own rocket motor, I imagine the first stage propellant would be even softer, simply as it's not required to deliver the projectile's full velocity and kinetic force, but just give it a "kickstart" (to negate those very issues the real-life gyrojets suffered from).

With boltguns, I would imagine that shooting them one-handed would require power armour or bionics (or an Astartes, or Straken ), though ... otherwise you'll just screw up your aim. Not even just because of the recoil, but because the weapon's point of balance is before the hand, and I believe its heavy weight would make it difficult to hold it steady. Pistols on the other hand would be easy, so no problem there. At least that's my interpretation based on what I read so far.

OOF, Just googled FPSRUSSIA and it looks like one of their producers got murdered today.

Bolters are meant to be fired from the hip while swinging a giant chainsaw in your other hand. A stock would just make the weapon more cumbersome.

However, OP, 40k is what you make of it, and there is nothing stopping you from making your own medusa pattern bolter with a folding or telescoping stock for your own marines.

Bolt pistols, bolters and heavy bolters used to all use the same ammunition - I'm pretty sure this is no longer the case. I'd guess that a bolt pistol would actually have more recoil than a bolter, as it will have a higher initial propellant charge before a smaller rocket kicks in, so that it's reached full velocity at closer range.

As has already been stated, Bolters used to have stocks, but since they were awkward, they usually got cut off, the same with plasma guns my metal ones have stocks, but i cut them off, i'm not sure about the more recent plastics (if any).

On a more practical note. Space marines, and sisters of battle, who are the primary boltgun users, wear power armour, and i'm pretty certain the nature of the armour means a stock is unecessary from a recoil point of view.
From a targetting Point of view, Marine (and i'm guessing SoB as well) helmets have a HUD on them indicating where the weapon is pointed so the stock is not required for aiming. I'm pretty sure the marine could stick his hand round a corner, and shoot stuff and simply aim via his HUD.

For the non marine, and non armoured troops, which i would guess should include scouts, i'm guessing a stock would be a practical addition since normal people don't have super duper armour, and are weaklings in comparison. plus bolguns actually look cool as they are.

There are a few marine weapons that it appears do have stocks, but they are of the heavy variety (plasma cannons and lascannons) and lascannons and Missile launchers both have targetting sights. i doubt they are strictly necessary for marines, but they look cool, and cool > all else

Graphite wrote:
Bolt pistols, bolters and heavy bolters used to all use the same ammunition - I'm pretty sure this is no longer the case. I'd guess that a bolt pistol would actually have more recoil than a bolter, as it will have a higher initial propellant charge before a smaller rocket kicks in, so that it's reached full velocity at closer range.

Bolters and Bolt Pistols still use the same ammo. Heavy Bolters never used the same ammo.

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
Bolters are built to be fired from the Hip while charging into the enemy. The Space Marine puts one shoulder forward to absorb shots while holding the bolter at their side to soften the enemy. Once he's close enough, out comes the combat knife or chainsword, and suddenly you've got a whole new problem.

Except the marine specifically cannot shoot from the hip as charging into the enemy...

-Matt

I like how someone will ask a question, 4 people will answer it, and than someone ask the same question...

Welcome to internet forums.

Suddenly something fits together... I do understand now. The physical and mechanical principles concerning stocks on firearms are lost knowledge. They were archived somewhere between "the art of welding" and "the connection between lifting force and propulsion on concave airfoils". This explains why my little plastic men have so enormous difficulties to even kill unprotected guardsmen standing still in formation before them, and why it is impossible to even hit something more than about 50m away with a bolter... No really, makes totally sense now.

By the way, the old rogue trader guardsmens' laser rifles didn't have stocks nor magazines.

I thought bolter ammo was mini rockets, so since the bullets generate their own thrust, they just get popped out like a nerf and then speed up REALLY FAST

That would explain it, yep

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
I thought bolter ammo was mini rockets, so since the bullets generate their own thrust, they just get popped out like a nerf and then speed up REALLY FAST

That would explain it, yep

Now I'm imagining bolters making Nerf gun noises.

"Brothers! Bring down these foul traitors!" *Foont! Foont! Foont! Foont!*

Bolter rounds have a conventional propellant to push them out the barrel, and a rocket motor to propel them beyond that.

The technology doesn't make 100% sense. It's essentially gyrojet style technology with a two stage propellant. Probably a low recoil, (relatively) low muzzle velocity, then a rapid acceleration with the rocket. Seems like it would have trouble penetrating at point blank range if it worked that way.

I try not to think too much about it, lol. It's Fantastech. It works because it does.

On a similar note, a lot of the new GW Autoguns have no stocks either. Cultists definitely do not have bionics and super human strength/Iron grip to mitigate recoil the way SM do.

 btr75 wrote:
On a similar note, a lot of the new GW Autoguns have no stocks either. Cultists definitely do not have bionics and super human strength/Iron grip to mitigate recoil the way SM do.

I've been assured with total certainty that:

a) Chaos cults are not reknowned for concerning themselves with practical issues when working to further the goals of the Dark Gods
b) Chaos Gods have absolutely no concern about potential work injuries their followers may sustain while furthering their cause
c) Chaos cultists' career opportunities are very limited in the long run. Their retirement plan isn't much better, either...

Basically, what I'm saying is that the Cultists are too insane / blood crazed to care about recoil or aiming, and whatever powers they serve use them as fodder, so they wouldn't bother giving them too much training. Particularly in the 'safe operation of firearms' department.

 Lupe wrote:

 btr75 wrote:
On a similar note, a lot of the new GW Autoguns have no stocks either. Cultists definitely do not have bionics and super human strength/Iron grip to mitigate recoil the way SM do.

I've been assured with total certainty that:

a) Chaos cults are not reknowned for concerning themselves with practical issues when working to further the goals of the Dark Gods
b) Chaos Gods have absolutely no concern about potential work injuries their followers may sustain while furthering their cause
c) Chaos cultists' career opportunities are very limited in the long run. Their retirement plan isn't much better, either...

Basically, what I'm saying is that the Cultists are too insane / blood crazed to care about recoil or aiming, and whatever powers they serve use them as fodder, so they wouldn't bother giving them too much training. Particularly in the 'safe operation of firearms' department.

Still, who would even manufacture an assault rifle without a stock? Stop looking for fluff answers, this is a simple issue of the details being to fiddly, no stock is much easier to work with on the miniatures.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Still, who would even manufacture an assault rifle without a stock? Stop looking for fluff answers, this is a simple issue of the details being to fiddly, no stock is much easier to work with on the miniatures.

Cannibalized vehicle-mounted weapons? Crew-served autocannons with all the redundant parts (bipod, tripod, crate magazines etc) chopped off for better portability? Who knows... like I said, Chaos cults are a lot of things, but not exactly logical or picky with equipment selection.

I mean, I get that Rule of Cool, casting restrictions and ease of modeling are probably the best explanation, but nonetheless, I like how the stockless autocannons fit in with the background of chaos cults.

They could very well have cut them off to make the weapon shorter?

Trust me. You see enough rag tag insurgent style forces and you realize that "proper technique" is a foreign concept to a lot of them.

Not having a stock also makes the rifles easier to conceal under their rags before it's time to go do whatvere their cult is doing, which is useful in a hive city or whatever.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
They could very well have cut them off to make the weapon shorter?

Trust me. You see enough rag tag insurgent style forces and you realize that "proper technique" is a foreign concept to a lot of them.

When I see 13year olds fighting in the Congo with AKs, you know what I see? Rifle stocks. Even with all the explanations and cannibalized weapons you might see a guy or two without stocks, not all.

I can venture a guess that you've seen nothing of the sort, lol.

A 13 year old fighting in Africa is a lot different than a chaos cultist. For one the chaos cultists needs to be discrete when walking around in a city or anywhere with a weapon he cannot just walk around brandishing an autogun, he would be killed pretty fast. The fighting style of a group of child soldiers compared to a group of chaos cultists are so completely different its not even funny. There two groups in which probably the only thing they have in common is that they kill innocent people and used crappy second hand weapons thats it. But each weapon have been created for their own circumstance, an autogun with a stock is easy to conceal under a cloak than one with a stock and compliments the cultists way of fighting, stealthy hit and run tactics in a hive city or where ever.

I know as far as fluff goes theyre lacking here but since we have modern shotguns and rifles with built in recoil dampening springs. (go to a gun store with firing range and rent an AA12 like no recoil at all its amazing. although without class 3 weapons lisence in america you have to get a civilianized semiauto one stillcool) Since we have that in the 2nd melinium its not unreasonable that all of their guns have no recoil in the 41st and that the stock on lasguns is just for a good cheekwell for aim for IG troops

It's the year 40K where Super Warrior worship the Dead Emperor in theyr flying churches and kill aliens and heretics above a low shoe. Logic and elvis left the building a long time ago. Why bother looking for a logic awser?

 GambleDwarf wrote:
A 13 year old fighting in Africa is a lot different than a chaos cultist. For one the chaos cultists needs to be discrete when walking around in a city or anywhere with a weapon he cannot just walk around brandishing an autogun, he would be killed pretty fast. The fighting style of a group of child soldiers compared to a group of chaos cultists are so completely different its not even funny. There two groups in which probably the only thing they have in common is that they kill innocent people and used crappy second hand weapons thats it. But each weapon have been created for their own circumstance, an autogun with a stock is easy to conceal under a cloak than one with a stock and compliments the cultists way of fighting, stealthy hit and run tactics in a hive city or where ever.

Yes yes, the cultist needs to hide his gun, nevermind the guy with the heavy stubber or the giant tank that is behind him. These are battlefield miniatures, not clandestine agents.

I can venture a guess that you've seen nothing of the sort, lol.

I've seen a little, on TV!

 Andrew1975 wrote:


Yes yes, the cultist needs to hide his gun, nevermind the guy with the heavy stubber or the giant tank that is behind him. These are battlefield miniatures, not clandestine agents.

Yes the Cultist wouldn't need to keep his Autugun hidden in open conflict, what about when there isn't a war? You really think Chaos Cults on Imperium controlled worlds are going to be walking around in gangs everyone brandishing their weapons willy nilly, no. Your not realizing that almost all Chaos Cults start as small clandestine groups that are extremely secret and try their best to stay hidden from Imperial eyes or else have a Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor show up and give them the Emperor's fiery justice. Besides i can see a stockless autogun being used to pretty good effect in any Hive City in which distances are nice and close, would you not prefer something more compact to move around in buildings with?

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Bolter rounds have a conventional propellant to push them out the barrel, and a rocket motor to propel them beyond that.

The technology doesn't make 100% sense. It's essentially gyrojet style technology with a two stage propellant. Probably a low recoil, (relatively) low muzzle velocity, then a rapid acceleration with the rocket. Seems like it would have trouble penetrating at point blank range if it worked that way.

I try not to think too much about it, lol. It's Fantastech. It works because it does.

"Low velocity" can still be plenty lethal. At point blank range the bolt shell might not penetrate power armor, but anything less than that is still going to get punched right through.

 GambleDwarf wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


Yes yes, the cultist needs to hide his gun, nevermind the guy with the heavy stubber or the giant tank that is behind him. These are battlefield miniatures, not clandestine agents.

Yes the Cultist wouldn't need to keep his Autugun hidden in open conflict, what about when there isn't a war? You really think Chaos Cults on Imperium controlled worlds are going to be walking around in gangs everyone brandishing their weapons willy nilly, no. Your not realizing that almost all Chaos Cults start as small clandestine groups that are extremely secret and try their best to stay hidden from Imperial eyes or else have a Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor show up and give them the Emperor's fiery justice. Besides i can see a stockless autogun being used to pretty good effect in any Hive City in which distances are nice and close, would you not prefer something more compact to move around in buildings with?

Sure, sub-machine guns are great. On a real battlefield you want a little more range that's why most rebels and terrorists tend to leave those at home when the real war starts or they have the foresight to use collapsible stocks. For reference the AK is the most widely used weapon in this case, rarely do you see them with no stock. It happens sure, but not as a rule. People modify guns in all kinds of goofy ways for concealment, sawn off no stock shotguns for example. Once a rebellion gets to the point of open conflict though you are not going to see much of that equipment as its no longer necessary and people are using whatever weapon they can find, usually unmodified military grade armament.

Seriously trying to shoot an assault rifle without a stock is just a bad idea. I find more justification for Lazguns without stocks as depending on the science there should be no kick. I understand some people feel the need to fluff justify everything, but it's not really necessary.

GambleDwarf wrote:You really think Chaos Cults on Imperium controlled worlds are going to be walking around in gangs everyone brandishing their weapons willy nilly, no.

Well, it depends on the planet in question ... I've seen and read about a lot of Imperial worlds having armed citizens because of stuff like gang warfare in lower hives or anti-mutant pogroms. I'm sure it's a local thing, but I'd wager that many worlds may not have any laws regulating the possession of weapons, not in the least because it also serves to prepare the population for alien invasion. Given that Imperial governors are personally held responsible for ensuring the readiness of their world, I'd wager many not caring for an increase in gun violence (Necromunda ) as long as it keeps his world in his hands.
I could imagine clever Chaos cults pretending to be a militia of "concerned citizens" or even an Imperial cult paying lip-service to the local Ecclesiarchy until they're ready to revolt.

You do raise an excellent point regarding stockless autoguns and their usage in CQB, however. Many submachineguns in the past, and many modern day assault rifles, have been produced with a foldable stock that can be retracted, for specifically such combat situations. In 40k, bolters were invented for the Space Marines, and the Astartes are shock troops who are all about CQB. They don't dig in and snipe from many hundred meters afar, but rather get as close as possible. Especially when drop-podding into a hot zone I could imagine stocks just being a nuisance when you're immediately surrounded by enemies trying to club or claw at you.

And that's aside from them just not being compatible to a suit of armour as massive as that, anyhow. The thick breastplate and uberlarge pauldrons would prevent them from taking proper aim, so why bother with a stock that would only end up being a hindrance in close combat? The weapon's own weight likely makes it suitable as an ersatz-hammer anyways, if you really want to slap someone with it. In most cases, power armour, training and/or auto-senses should make up for when you truly have to aim at something afar.

The other users of bolt weapons either replicate the Space Marines' tactics, or they just have that gun because it's some sort of heirloom or status symbol.

Exalbaru wrote:I know as far as fluff goes theyre lacking here but since we have modern shotguns and rifles with built in recoil dampening springs. [...] Since we have that in the 2nd melinium its not unreasonable that all of their guns have no recoil in the 41st and that the stock on lasguns is just for a good cheekwell for aim for IG troops

In fact, the 3E rulebook's bolter cross-section does show a "blast compensator" which kinda reminds me of the working principle of a recoilless rifle. I'm not sure if it would work as well, considering that the blast is only directed upwards, but perhaps it is meant to counteract a weapon's natural climb ... either way, I think reducing recoil is the only thing this part could have been meant for by whoever has written this.

I just looked up the stats for cultists in my little Dark Vengeance flier. They are BS 3, same as an IG guardsman with a lasgun. Guardsman has better training, a stock for better stability, and what I would assume would be more accurate direct fire with the laser.

*shrugz*

Thats because Cultists are often traitor guardsmen, or disposessed underhive gangers that have some experience with weaponry.

Don't assume Cultist means untrained. A cult will almost certaintly have some sort of weapons training.

Also, BS3 encompasses a ridiculously broad scope of ability. I mean, we're talking about a system where hit probability is measured in divisions of sixths.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats because Cultists are often traitor guardsmen, or disposessed underhive gangers that have some experience with weaponry.

Don't assume Cultist means untrained. A cult will almost certaintly have some sort of weapons training.

Many cultists (non-former guardsman) also have little or no proper training, whereas a regular guardsman has seen some standardized training, and likely has seen multiple campaigns.

I hear what you are saying though. Many cultists have been in multiple campaigns in their own right, and likley have had some training from veterans.

 btr75 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats because Cultists are often traitor guardsmen, or disposessed underhive gangers that have some experience with weaponry.

Don't assume Cultist means untrained. A cult will almost certaintly have some sort of weapons training.

Many cultists (non-former guardsman) also have little or no proper training, whereas a regular guardsman has seen some standardized training, and likely has seen multiple campaigns.

I hear what you are saying though. Many cultists have been in multiple campaigns in their own right, and likley have had some training from veterans.

"regular guardsman has seen some standardized training, and likely has seen multiple campaigns." Really? I thought they were just bubble wrap for tanks. I barely see them survive battles much less campaigns. Don't know how many campaigns I would want to survive, at least with them knowing about it.

Officer: "Welcome to the Vets corps, here is your melta gun, now go suicide charr....erm.....I mean take out that tank!"
Gaurdsman: "Er....Thanks?.........No f..ing stock on this either.....Why is it painted red?.......Wait that's blood isn't it?"
Officer: "Blood of Veterans, you should feel honored to touch it, now git charging!"

"regular guardsman has seen some standardized training, and likely has seen multiple campaigns." Really? I thought they were just bubble wrap for tanks. I barely see them survive battles much less campaigns. Don't know how many campaigns I would want to survive, at least with them knowing about it.

Officer: "Welcome to the Vets corps, here is your melta gun, now go suicide charr....erm.....I mean take out that tank!"
Gaurdsman: "Er....Thanks?.........No f..ing stock on this either.....Why is it painted red?.......Wait that's blood isn't it?"
Officer: "Blood of Veterans, you should feel honored to touch it, now git charging!"

Probably conscripts in this case

 btr75 wrote:

"regular guardsman has seen some standardized training, and likely has seen multiple campaigns." Really? I thought they were just bubble wrap for tanks. I barely see them survive battles much less campaigns. Don't know how many campaigns I would want to survive, at least with them knowing about it.

Officer: "Welcome to the Vets corps, here is your melta gun, now go suicide charr....erm.....I mean take out that tank!"
Gaurdsman: "Er....Thanks?.........No f..ing stock on this either.....Why is it painted red?.......Wait that's blood isn't it?"
Officer: "Blood of Veterans, you should feel honored to touch it, now git charging!"

Probably conscripts in this case

No, this is apparently all vets are good for going by the game. Suicidal Melta Vets are the only Vets I ever see.

Officer: "Welcome to the Vets corps, here is your melta gun, now go suicide charr....erm.....I mean take out that tank!"
Gaurdsman: "Er....Thanks?.........No f..ing stock on this either.....Why is it painted red?.......Wait that's blood isn't it?"
Officer: "Blood of Veterans, you should feel honored to touch it, now git charging!"

Probably conscripts in this case

Space marines may not actually engage in long range combat very often. They're designed for close quarters and 'get up close and scare the gak out of enemies'. Hell, some Marines learn that ability to use even bolters one handed (there was even a rule in the games covering that as I recall.) so the absence of a stock may not be an issue.

Failing that chalk it up to power armor providing a rigid firing platform (I'm sure they can lock the servos in place for accurate firing if need be, assuming the power armor isn't meant to do so automatically or with a thought.)

Collapsible and folding stocks are innovations that we have today. I see no defensible reason why engineers would completely omit stocks on bolt guns.

Granted, we also have weapons lacking iron sights(and no accessory mounting options for sights), and quirks like the heavy bolter being seemingly designed for hip-shooting only, so I honestly don't expect particularly realistic depictions of weapons to begin with.

It seems like a combination of art-mirroring-modeling and an acceptably low level of realism(given the IP, this isn't a huge problem).

there is no point in wasting materials on something that isn't needed. Marines don't need stocks on their bolters, and most modern SMGs don't have stocks either.

The material thats been saved on a bolter stock can be used to make other things.

 Grey Templar wrote:
there is no point in wasting materials on something that isn't needed. Marines don't need stocks on their bolters, and most modern SMGs don't have stocks either.

The material thats been saved on a bolter stock can be used to make other things.

As far as I know, one of the widely used submachine guns, the MP5, has variants with fixed or collapsible stocks.

As far as 'wasting material', I see no reason to believe that boltguns are made of some particularly scarce substance or that the forge worlds producing them would cut corners to omit a basic feature like that.

Variants yes, but the MP5 is fully functional without a stock.

And even base metals like Iron are valuable. Cost cutting is cost cutting. When you have a galaxy spanning empire in the countless trillions that little bit of metal you saved could actually be quite a lot.

SMGs actually have more recoil than most assault rifles. Almost all SMGs have collapsible stocks, with the intent that they be used.

Remember the true grit rule (now replace by giving all marines a bolt pistol... lame). They can fire the bloody thing one handed, they don't need a stock.

 Gunhead1 wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Take into account some Marines fire bolters one-handed. Not much recoil there.

Then again, a rememberancer in an early HH book broke his arm firing a bolt pistol. So huge recoil for us, barely anything for a Mahreen.

I think I know the book your talking about (don't remember the title though) and I thought that he almost broke his wrist because he was old and not trained to fire weapons in general. Also bolt pistols are used by the IG a lot and in the codex you can give Stroom troopers Boltguns.

As for the issue of no stock Space marine strength, though IMHO it comes down to recoil dampners which allow normal humans to use them as well (though not as good). Though it is mainly a Space marine weapon.

Well, except that it isn't. Humans use it far more than marines do.

The recoil of a boltgun is overrated anyway, they just want to try to make it sound cool. But humans can use similar caliber weapons without breaking their arms off, never mind well trained humans using 41st millennium technology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Variants yes, but the MP5 is fully functional without a stock.

And even base metals like Iron are valuable. Cost cutting is cost cutting. When you have a galaxy spanning empire in the countless trillions that little bit of metal you saved could actually be quite a lot.

The Imperium doesn't cut costs about Space Marines.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Variants yes, but the MP5 is fully functional without a stock.

And even base metals like Iron are valuable. Cost cutting is cost cutting. When you have a galaxy spanning empire in the countless trillions that little bit of metal you saved could actually be quite a lot.

I didn't say there didn't exist stockless configurations of the MP5.

Re: materials, my point still stands -- there's no known reason for them to cut corners there just for the sake of your argument being right. There would be relatively few boltguns being produced(compared to say, lasguns).

The justification for stockless bolters is out-of-universe, in my view. There is no need to bend realism or fluff.

I think some boltguns would have stocks, depending on the tastes of the user. But that's just me.

A guardsman using a boltgun (lucky him!) would likely want a stock; a sister of battle would likely have little need.

 Melissia wrote:
I think some boltguns would have stocks, depending on the tastes of the user. But that's just me.

A guardsman using a boltgun (lucky him!) would likely want a stock; a sister of battle would likely have little need.

Yeah, there are actually some variants with stocks. according to Lexicanum(referencing Imperial Armour).

The 2nd Edition boltgun had a stock modeled on it. Even though you had to cut it off to mount it on nearly any model.

And most modern SMGs have a stock of some sort. There are variants that don't, but they are the exception, not the rule, and usually a stock is omitted for compactness, not because it functions perfectly without it. In fact, only a handful of PDW style SMGs don't have stocks.

People watch too many movies, lol,

 Lynata wrote:
Commissars seem to be able to use bolt pistols just fine ("promotions!"), and bolt pistols use the same ammo as bolters do.

You get astartes size bolt weapons and human sized bolt weapons. They have different calibres.

 somecallmeJack wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Commissars seem to be able to use bolt pistols just fine ("promotions!"), and bolt pistols use the same ammo as bolters do.

You get astartes size bolt weapons and human sized bolt weapons. They have different calibres.

No, the caliber is the same but the gun itself will have been made to fit a normal humans hands. Astartes hands are bigger than a normal humans after all.

The various expanded versions of the fluff have supported the idea of boltguns of varying calibers.

Space Marines don't just have bigger hands, they're also ridiculously bigger than normal humans. The tabletop models don't reflect this because 40K's scale is all jacked up. Space Marines and vehicles too small, or regular humans and most of the aliens too big. Either one you choose to believe. This is 40K. Even though they both are essentially the same idea, I know if I only state one, some screwball will have to point out that "it's the other way around".

They still have the same stats in 40K because it's a game decided in "sixths". You can't have a Strength 3.5 bolter, so to be more powerful than a lasgun, they're all S4.

There are different calibers of boltguns. In the Helsreach book, when the BTs reach the cathedral i think, It mentions that sisters of battle and other imperial forces use a smaller caliber than the Astarte's. I think it's because sisters of battle armour is more like advanced plate armour as it doesn't directly interface with the body through the black carapace so cannot compensate for recoil like astartes power armour patterns can.

 Melissia wrote:
I think some boltguns would have stocks, depending on the tastes of the user. But that's just me.

A guardsman using a boltgun (lucky him!) would likely want a stock; a sister of battle would likely have little need.

I'm pretty sure some of the Sisters of Battles showings have them using bolters with stocks (either the Calpurnia novels, Ben Counter's ventures into SoB territory, or Swallow's novels.)

uk_crow wrote:There are different calibers of boltguns. In the Helsreach book, [...]

And this is where we delve into the realm of different authors having their own, individual opinions on how stuff in their interpretation of the setting is supposed to work.

Games Workshop, however, has been fairly adamant about the issue. Bolters are bolters, and there is no mechanical difference between "human" or "Astartes" models as it has been pushed into certain outsourced products. Go check the Inquisitor RPG's armoury - everyone gets the same stuff. As it should be. For when recoil is not an issue, why exactly should there be "different calibers"? Some sort of need to give Space Marines "+1 stuff" because otherwise they'd not be as cool? That's personal preference, and whilst it is certainly a valid opinion to have, it remains a deviation from the original studio material.

"The Sisters of Battle are exceptionally well equipped, with armour and weapons the equal of any Space Marine Chapter."
- 3E C:WH

The various licensed products are split on the issue - unsurprisingly, for there are many different writers all with their own ideas. For each novel where you have different calibers (or other disparities), you probably have another one where it's the same. Off the top of my head I recall Eisenhorn working with a bolt pistol he got from a Deathwatch Librarian, and just a few days ago, someone mentioned the Blood Ravens in DoW2 having a bolt pistol in their armoury that was once owned by an Inquisitor.

Bottom line: It all depends on the material you want to roll with. I'll continue to go with GW.

RPG's don't have stocks. Why should bolters?

ENOZONE wrote:RPG's don't have stocks. Why should bolters?

Granted, most RPGs have lower recoil because the missile gradually picks up speed as its rocket motor burns, and (or so I assume) leave the muzzle at a velocity below their maximum speed - which makes it easier for the operator to compensate with his physical strength and muscle reflex. This is opposite to a traditional gun's firing mechanism where the projectile is quickly propelled to high speed by a sort of "mini explosion" in the barrel as the powder charge is ignited.

Most fluff in 40k these days, including GW's own material, describe bolters as working on a two stage firing principle, with a conventional charge pushing the bolt out of the barrel before the rocket motor kicks in. This means that the operator may have to endure recoil more similar to a traditional gun.
One RPG (an exception from the rule, from what I understand) actually works exactly like that:
"The booster consists of a "small strip powder charge" that serves to propel the grenade out of the launcher; the sustainer motor then ignites and propels the grenade for the next few seconds, giving it a top speed of 294 meters per second."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7#Propulsion_system

In any case, the proponents of heavy recoil for bolt weapons usually dismiss the possibility of integrated recoil dampening technology (such as the "blast compensator" in the 3E bolter cross-section), the heavy weight of these weapons (various rulebooks), and that the bolt leaves the gun at "low velocity" (2E Wargear book).

Stocks would still be useful for sustained fire. An RPG you only discharge once, so it doesn't matter how your accuracy for subsequent shots would be affected by the moving weapon, since you're not going to take any. Boltguns, on the other hand, are capable of autofire, where the user could potentially affected even by small recoil. Unless he is wearing power armour, I guess. Other people could always just use single shots, or simply accept the reduction in accuracy in favour of the weapon's destructive capabilities in close quarters combat.

Then I guess we must refer to the rules codex's and lore to answer this question.

True Grit gives an idea that Bolters do have exceptional recoil, but while wielded in a two handed manner (or one handed manner when you're a plague marine) by an 8 foot walking tank, the giant's armor and extreme muscle mass "locks in" the weapon and can be fired from the hip with ease. I think the best example isn't imagining a person, but rather a tank - the turret is attacked and supported by a chasis, but to be mounted directly to the hull removes valuable maneuverability.

To further support this hypothesis, SM's are also prized for their ability in boarding actions and close quarters fighting. They do not generally use Bolters for long range engagements and those that do have stocks. I therefore conclude that Bolters are really supersized SMG's that fire RPG's.

I would say that True Grit is rather a representation of the massive weight that bolt weapons have - for unlike the recoil (which is never even mentioned once), this trait has been mentioned in the fluff again and again. A boltgun is even heavier, and its design means the point of balance will be even further to the front and away from the hand that holds the weapon. It sure as hell would not be easy to aim with such a massive slab of metal in your hand, and even harder to keep the barrel aimed once you started shooting!
The wording of the rule on page 76 of the rulebook also mentions that True Grit is a matter of training, not mentioning raw physical strength with a single word.

There have also been a number of non-Marine miniatures who use boltguns single-handedly. And again, bolt pistols and boltguns fire the same rounds, so it has to be the design of the weapon that makes it difficult to use with one hand, not the projectile it launches.

Lastly, in GW's version of the setting, Marines are "only" 7 feet. Nitpicking, I know, but I'm trying to stem the tide here.

"True Grit"

...The Primarch of the Death Guard, Mortarion, trained his warriors to fight on foot relying on their bolters to cut down their enemies. Loyal to his teachings down the centuries Plague Marines have learn to use their bolters in close combat, a feat aided by their ability to absorb the ferocious recoil with their diseased bulk...

- Page 51 of 3rd ed. CSM Codex

The point of such a weighty gun is refuted by normal men (of honorable standing) still being able to operate them at the same standards as SM's and SoB without any augmentation and also without stocks. Again, the concept of a powerful SMG continues to hold true even while in the hands of non marines - they are usually gifted to skilled warriors of the front lines - not snipers or sharpshooters.

 Lynata wrote:
I would say that True Grit is rather a representation of the massive weight that bolt weapons have - for unlike the recoil (which is never even mentioned once), this trait has been mentioned in the fluff again and again. A boltgun is even heavier, and its design means the point of balance will be even further to the front and away from the hand that holds the weapon. It sure as hell would not be easy to aim with such a massive slab of metal in your hand, and even harder to keep the barrel aimed once you started shooting!
The wording of the rule on page 76 of the rulebook also mentions that True Grit is a matter of training, not mentioning raw physical strength with a single word.

There have also been a number of non-Marine miniatures who use boltguns single-handedly. And again, bolt pistols and boltguns fire the same rounds, so it has to be the design of the weapon that makes it difficult to use with one hand, not the projectile it launches.

Lastly, in GW's version of the setting, Marines are "only" 7 feet. Nitpicking, I know, but I'm trying to stem the tide here.

For some reason I always thought bolt pistols were lower caliber and that humans used the same bolters as space marines but they can only fire it in semi-auto and maybe burst mode.

ENOZONE wrote:...The Primarch of the Death Guard, Mortarion, trained his warriors to fight on foot relying on their bolters to cut down their enemies. Loyal to his teachings down the centuries Plague Marines have learn to use their bolters in close combat, a feat aided by their ability to absorb the ferocious recoil with their diseased bulk...

That is the exact wording...? Huh, perplexing. Both because I've never seen any GW product mention a high recoil anywhere else (and I've read various books from all editions), as well as this wording suggesting that boltguns should have a higher recoil than bolt pistols, whereas the opposite should be true.

I'm at a loss.

Cheesecat wrote:For some reason I always thought bolt pistols were lower caliber and that humans used the same bolters as space marines but they can only fire it in semi-auto and maybe burst mode.

I cannot find a proper source regarding the caliber (at least not a GW one; I know FFG's books mentioned it but I prefer citing studio material due to the potential differences in setting interpretation) right now, although the Inquisitor RPG and Necromunda rulesets grant both the bolt pistol as well as the boltgun equal damage, their only differences being range and ammunition capacity. For the tabletop rules it is similar, but of course the numbers there are heavily abstracted.

Regarding the firing mode, there seems to be no difference at least in GW's RPGs. You even have "normal" people run around using heavy bolters, and those have an even larger caliber ... although their bulk is stressed as a notable trait, with people in the setting even referring to them as "back breakers".

Anyone remember that cityfight pic with the guardsmen with the bolter ( that has a stock)

Even if there was a stock, try hitting anything with those crappy sights.

The bit above.the barrel is a cam that the marine can look down with his helm cam

 Formosa wrote:
The bit above.the barrel is a cam that the marine can look down with his helm cam

Why certainly. But if you're not a marine, I don't think a stock would be -much- help.

Formosa wrote:Anyone remember that cityfight pic with the guardsmen with the bolter ( that has a stock)

I do!

ChaoticBob wrote:Even if there was a stock, try hitting anything with those crappy sights.

For what it's worth, I always interpreted the ironsight to just be a place where the optics gear (laser sight and/or autosense-link) is put. That it's still shaped like an oldskool ironsight is simply human nostalgia.



Also, there could well be bolter versions that have at least a small notch, or where the iron sight is so thin that you can aim it properly. But in the end, there is also the fact that bolt weapons are intended as short range shock assault weapons - by design, you're not intended to "snipe" with 'em, but rather blast away foes on a distance where the lack of ironsights might be of no real concern; where you just loosely point in the direction of people and still hit them... for anything else, there's the M.40 Targeter scope as an optional upgrade.

 somecallmeJack wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Commissars seem to be able to use bolt pistols just fine ("promotions!"), and bolt pistols use the same ammo as bolters do.

You get astartes size bolt weapons and human sized bolt weapons. They have different calibres.

No, they don't. They use the same ammo.

Astartes are not really that much larger than a human according to studio lore.

This is the only thing that makes "durr marines infiltrating human society!" story even remotely make sense, because if they WERE huge, they quite simply could not do so reliably.

Wait, really?

A walking tank vs a normal human being isn't "that much bigger?"

And where is this argument of Astartes "infiltrating" society? Astartes have always been above society while in their brotherhood. When exiled from it, they don't infiltrate society, they tend to take one over for their new masters....

Why must you derail this thread Melissa? Why? Will you not add anything beyond your SM angst? What of the SoB - why would they expertly use bolters - without a stock?

 Shadowclaimer wrote:
When you have exploding bullets, you don't need to look down sights.

The GMG (Grenade Machine Gun) says otherwise.

Lynata wrote:. For when recoil is not an issue, why exactly should there be "different calibers"?

Because there can be?

Space Marines are huge, and unencumbered by large or heavy ammunition and weapons. NATO armies moved (in a large part) to the 5.56mm because a trooper could carry significantly more ammunition for the same weight. Not because 5.56mm was superior to the old 7.62mm round they used as a standard before. A Space Marine could carry a larger caliber weapon and still carry far more ammunition than regular human troops.

It isn't really anything about Space Marines having to be +1. They already are +1, by design, so they might as well be equipped to take advantage of that. It just makes sense. And it makes sense that regular humans would want to take advantage of bolter technology, even if it means they cannot employ the same weaponry as a Marine.

 ENOZONE wrote:
Wait, really?

A walking tank vs a normal human being isn't "that much bigger?"

A Marine is only 7 foot tall. I know people almost that tall. A Marine is wider than a human by a wide margin, but not taller.

 ENOZONE wrote:
And where is this argument of Astartes "infiltrating" society? Astartes have always been above society while in their brotherhood. When exiled from it, they don't infiltrate society, they tend to take one over for their new masters....

Never heard of the Alpha Legion?

 ENOZONE wrote:
Why must you derail this thread Melissa? Why? Will you not add anything beyond your SM angst? What of the SoB - why would they expertly use bolters - without a stock?

Because Sisters have power armour more technologically advanced (in certain areas) than Astartes?

 ENOZONE wrote:
A walking tank vs a normal human being isn't "that much bigger?"

Space Marines are seven feet tall on average. Human beings are six feet tall on average.

This is not exactly a towering thing. Certain human beings are actually BIGGER than Space Marines, according to GW's lore. Power armor does not count, because any human can also wear powered armor.

Boltguns were designed before Marines existed. They were made for human beings, not Marines.

 ENOZONE wrote:
And where is this argument of Astartes "infiltrating" society?

Night Lords, Alpha Legion, etc.

Stay on topic, Enozone.

 Lynata wrote:
Don't the Primarchs in the HH series also change their hair colour all the time or something?

No, just Sanguinius.

And no, certain humans are taller than Marines. No human that doesn't resemble a Great Unclean One is bigger than a Marine.

Still Standing wrote:

 Shadowclaimer wrote:
When you have exploding bullets, you don't need to look down sights.

The GMG (Grenade Machine Gun) says otherwise.

But apparently doesn't need a stock... (You'll say mounted on a tank - I say refer to my previous argument)

Melissia wrote:

 ENOZONE wrote:
A walking tank vs a normal human being isn't "that much bigger?"

Space Marines are seven feet tall on average. Human beings are six feet tall on average.

This is not exactly a towering thing. Certain human beings are actually BIGGER than Space Marines, according to GW's lore. Power armor does not count, because any human can also wear powered armor.

 ENOZONE wrote:
And where is this argument of Astartes "infiltrating" society?

Night Lords, Alpha Legion, etc.

Stay on topic, Enozone.

Melissa you still haven't answered the topic's question, let alone refute any of my claims.So I'll ask you again, why do bolters not need stocks?

 Still Standing wrote:

 ENOZONE wrote:
Wait, really?

A walking tank vs a normal human being isn't "that much bigger?"

A Marine is only 7 foot tall. I know people almost that tall. A Marine is wider than a human by a wide margin, but not taller.

People really underestimate the sheer size and bulk of Space Marines.

Neil Fingleton, a British born basketball player, was approximately 7.5 feet tall, which is more or less the accepted height of Space Marines (some people like to claim 7', but the image of the 7' tall Marine, the Marine is hunched, and not standing up straight. It's somewhat irrelevant anyway). He weighed 370 pounds.

370 pounds. Here is a picture of Neil.


Now imagine a Space Marine who is that tall, but half again (at least) as thick, with extra and redundant organs (water weight is heavy), thicker more dense bones (necessary to support just how heavy he is going to be without degenerative effects over the lifespan. Many of the world's tallest people were crippled since their bones and ligaments couldn't bear the strain. Space Marines would have to be designed to counteract this), significantly more bones because of the dense overlapping ribcage, denser ligaments and musculature, and an implanted subdermal carapace.

They're going to weigh seven hundred pounds or more, easy. And that's before he puts on power armor, and hefts a four and a half foot long shoulder fired cannon, plus ammunition and grenades. lol. A Space Marine isn't a tall dude like your friends.

Yeah, they're fething huge, on a scale where "bigger" doesn't even begin to cover it, lol.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:A Space Marine could carry a larger caliber weapon and still carry far more ammunition than regular human troops.

Whilst that is a valid argument, a lesser caliber would also mean a decrease in explosive payload and/or rocket fuel. And once you've started to go down that road and compromise, you could just as well pick up one of the many other guns that have comparable power but are both cheaper and more reliable. Like autoguns with manstopper rounds. The difference is not huge enough to warrant closing the gap with some sort of hybrid. Yes, maybe the ordinary guy's magazine will only hold 20 instead of 30 rounds, but at least those shots will count just as much as if a Marine had fired them. The strength of bolt weapons lies not in a ridiculously high rate of fire (some autoguns) or an abundant ammo supply (lasguns), but rather in the power that every single round holds.

Unless we're talking about heavy bolters ... but even those are lugged around by Guardsmen as well as some hive gangers. But don't ask me how much ammo the latter have available, lacking a dedicated loader who carries it.

At the end of the day, it's what GW has laid down. However, there are some licensed products who prefer to deviate from this, so people are free to pick their favourite and subjectively more realistic approach.

Ammunition supply is always a factor, lol.


Besides, you're looking at it in reverse. The "persons sized" bolter is the upgrade from the lasgun and autogun. The Marine sized bolter is the upgrade from that.

Besides, as you've always said, there's no canon.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
They're going to weigh seven hundred pounds or more, easy.

The baseline weight for a Space Marine in Deathwatch just happens to be 700 pounds, for many of the reasons you've brought up.

Ammunition is a factor, but damage potential is as well. As someone else already mentioned in this thread, the owners of bolt weaponry tend to operate in roles where they would not (or rather: should not) need many reloads. This is true for Space Marines hot-dropping into an enemy base, to Commissars executing Guardsmen, all the way to some hive ganger robbing a store. These people just aren't expected to discharge their weapon a thousand times during a single battle - if they would have to, something must have gone wrong and they were pushed into a role different than the one they intended to fill, such as Space Marines fighting several days of trench fighting. Which I recall happened in a short story, but in the case of Astartes I would assume that supply drops are standard procedure.

Thinking about it, using the same caliber would even allow Space Marines to tap Imperial Guard armouries to rearm, which would turn your argument regarding ammunition supply being a concern into favouring compatible caliber instead of opposing it.

If all bolt weapon operators would need as much ammunition as possible, then even Space Marines would run around with lasguns.

Spot on about the canon, though. It's what I meant with the last sentence in my previous post.

 ENOZONE wrote:
why do bolters not need stocks?

I refer to you here, and ask you to actually read my posts before responding:

 Melissia wrote:
I think some boltguns would have stocks, depending on the tastes of the user. But that's just me.

A guardsman using a boltgun (lucky him!) would likely want a stock; a sister of battle would likely have little need.

Quite simply, it depends on the user. Just like stocks on normal weapons. You don't normally give a pistol a stock, for example. And you don't normally take a stock off an automatic weapon

But you can, depending on the needs of the user. Your question is asinine at best.

As for your claims, I did refute them. Just because you refuse to read doesn't mean that things weren't said.

If Relic can be considered part of the "offical" cannon, then there is reason to believe that there is little to no difference in size between the calibers of bolters. SM had ammo crates EVERYWHERE on the forge world - protected initially by skitarri and the IG. Yes, it may have been a FW - and a video game- but it isn't a stretch to think that Captain Titus was reaching into the stores of bolter ammo normally reserved for the PDF on his long trek to crush heretical and xenos skulls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 ENOZONE wrote:
why do bolters not need stocks?

I refer to you here, and ask you to actually read my posts before responding:

 Melissia wrote:
I think some boltguns would have stocks, depending on the tastes of the user. But that's just me.

A guardsman using a boltgun (lucky him!) would likely want a stock; a sister of battle would likely have little need.

Quite simply, it depends on the user. Just like stocks on normal weapons. You don't normally give a pistol a stock, for example. And you don't normally take a stock off an automatic weapon

But you can, depending on the needs of the user. Your question is asinine at best.

As for your claims, I did refute them. Just because you refuse to read doesn't mean that things weren't said.

./sigh... right here we go.

1. The question isn't mine - it's the topic of the thread, if you believe it not worth your time and would rather attempt to me, why are you here? I'm here for answers, not trolling insults.

2.You didn't refute any of my points. Your statements are incorrect and not supported by the narrative of 40k.

- Space marines are significantly bigger than other humans, even those that come close to their height.

-The Night Lords Legion does not infiltrate society; they infiltrate a planet and subjugate it to terror tactics until it falls.

-The Alpha Legion does not physically infiltrate society; they use cultist agents and propaganda to turn a populace against itself to make it more vulnerable to their clandestine agenda.

3. If having a stock on a bolter is simply personal choice, why do SM's and SoB virtually never have them? Do they all choose to forgo conventional wisdom of being able to make accurate shots - especially when they are some of the best in the Imperium?

 ENOZONE wrote:
If Relic can be considered part of the "offical" cannon

Also Fantasy Flight Ggames, also Games Workshop itself.

 ENOZONE wrote:
1. The question isn't mine - it's the topic of the thread

Actually no. The topic of the thread was about why the models and art didn't depict them with stocks. The obvious answer has already been given-- "because it looks cool."

End discussion.

 ENOZONE wrote:
2.You didn't refute any of my points.

Well, except where I did.

 ENOZONE wrote:
- Space marines are significantly bigger than other humans, even those that come close to their height.

Not really as much as many fanboys believe.

 ENOZONE wrote:
-The Alpha Legion does not physically infiltrate society

Better go tell Games Workshop that and ask them to re-write some of their novels and fluff.

 ENOZONE wrote:
3. If having a stock on a bolter is simply personal choice, why do SM's and SoB virtually never have them?

I refer you to the above response-- "because it looks cool". Games Workshop is not in the business of realism.

On a less caustic note, please tell me some examples of the Alpha legion actually dressing up and melding into society.

Apart from that, you've given me your opinion and that's all I asked, thank you.

To be fair, OP did ask for possible in-universe reasons, so Enozone has a point.

ENOZONE wrote:If Relic can be considered part of the "offical" cannon [...]

Yes and no. Relic's games, just like FFG's RPGs, the many novels of Black Library etc. are official, but they do not necessarily tie into GW's version of the setting.

In short, there is no such thing as a "universal truth" when it comes to 40k, just lots of interpretations from the various sources - and from the fans themselves.
FFG's RPGs, for example, have Space Marines use better stuff than anyone else, which stands in sharp contrast to various bits of Codex fluff or GW's own Inquisitor RPG. Yet that doesn't mean anything at all unless you want it to. The same could be said for GW's books. It's up to you to choose whatever version of the 'verse you want to roll with.

Kinda sucks if you were looking for consistency, but GW seems to regard it as a strength rather than a weakness. Again, a matter of preferences.

Keep in mind that FFG's Deathwatch game was designed for "movie marines", as well. Which is definitely unfluffy.

To me, it just seems as though having that huge inconsistency over such an integral part of the game gives points to argue about endlessly while we get price gouged and twisted around over semantics. I swear there's another organization that does that... I just can't seem to put my finger on it....

IG Bolter with a stock. FYI this model is NOT OOP. it is in the HQ section at the bottom on GW. Direct only, old yes but not OOP.

That is not made by GW! The only "official" scale we have is the one that Jes Goodwin drew up, basically stating that Marines are on average a foot taller than regular humans, so 7 feet. They also contain the same height variations as humans so you may have a few that are only 6 but some up to 8 or 9 with 10 or more feet being freakish!

Which puts the above scale within the official GW drawing's realm of possability.

Well, Jes said "seven to seven point five" ... but yeah, it's not too bad. I do like how the picture reinforces the image of how wide Astartes actually are. And that, due to the occupant's own bulk, their armour isn't quite as thick as a lot of people seem to assume (Codex fluff mentioning the plates to be "up to an inch thick"). The latter is more visible on another image from the same source, though.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
That is not made by GW! The only "official" scale we have is the one that Jes Goodwin drew up, basically stating that Marines are on average a foot taller than regular humans, so 7 feet. They also contain the same height variations as humans so you may have a few that are only 6 but some up to 8 or 9 with 10 or more feet being freakish!

The Marine in the drawing isn't standing straight up.

Though it is correct that some Black Library authors have inflated their Space Marines to ridiculous heights, as have some artists. That's just to be expected in an IP with as large a number of people creating content for it as there is, with very limited editorial review.

What do you mean he isn't standing straight up? He looks straight up to me.

Then I suggest seeking the advice of either an optometrist, or an orthopedist.

Also wtf is with constant mentioning (in the books) how someone is dwarfed by someone...I mean we all know height ratio - primarch>terminator>sm>alpha legion:-)>regular dude..

Technically the Terminators shouldn't be significantly taller than regular power armored Space Marines. After all, it's the same dude having to fit inside the suit and operate it.

Of course a Terminator is going to be taller. The suit extends well above the head a good foot.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course a Terminator is going to be taller. The suit extends well above the head a good foot.

Correct. The style of the suit extends behind the Marine, it's kind of silly to wonder why they'd be taller. It's like asking why a tank is taller than a suit of powered armor, after all, the people inside are the same size!

Yeah,it's just like that. You know, if it wasn't anything like that at all.

Look at where a Terminators head is. Look how much of the suit is above that.

So unless you can come up with an explanation that a marine that gets to wear terminator armor has an operation to stick his head back on in the middle of his chest the TDA is taller than the Marine is normally.

The terminator user HAS to have his head operated to his chest. That or his backbone is to be broken in order to dislodge his shoulders backwards. That armour just won't work.

A 7'6" 350 lb basketball player?? Since when?

Yeah, the termies are a bit silly proportionately. Not just the head on the chest, but how about those stick-like thighs? But they're cool, right? Just like bolters without stocks.

I love how this has become an argument about the porportions of Space Marines.

I always thought the TDA was more like a mech suit than an actual suit of armor. The astartes sits inside and operates the armor with various interfaces. The head is a remote sensor module that is only really shaped like that to satisfy our human tastes.

On topic, judging by the way Space Marines use bolters I'd say they simply prefer not to use stocks or don't need to. After all, on power armored models the butt of the gun is nearly flush with the individuals forearm. With non power armored guys it would be an issue and that's why you see guardsmen attaching stocks. With power armored guys it would be really uncomfortable to hold a stock equipped bolter because of how darned bulky the armor is.

No, its not big enough to be like a mecha suit. His arms are in the actual arms. Which is possable, although it must be exceeingly uncomfortable.

GK terminator suits, and the old old TDA sclupts, don't have the problem the new sculpt has.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, its not big enough to be like a mecha suit. His arms are in the actual arms. Which is possable, although it must be exceeingly uncomfortable.

GK terminator suits, and the old old TDA sclupts, don't have the problem the new sculpt has.

In that case, chalk it up to the "heroic scale" thing you read about from time to time. That or someone who has no idea how armor works.

 Makarov wrote:
I love how this has become an argument about the porportions of Space Marines.

Also about the silly design of Terminator armor. Don't forget that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Look at where a Terminators head is. Look how much of the suit is above that.

So unless you can come up with an explanation that a marine that gets to wear terminator armor has an operation to stick his head back on in the middle of his chest the TDA is taller than the Marine is normally.

It really probably never occurred to you that when I referred to the height of the Terminator, I was very specifically referring to where his head is at compared to where a power armored Marine's head is, and not the total height of the suit's crest.

Good lord. I love it when everything has to be spelled out and I can't just rely on common sense and context to drive replies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

That's a useful visual reference, but it's not official, doesn't match studio material, and sadly isn't even internally consistent. There is no way that Marine could fit inside that armour. His traps alone are about 6" too high to fit inside that cuirass.

It's all speculation obviously, but in Gundam for example, there are camera's on some guns, that feed directly into the pilot's screens. So if recoil isn't an issue, and youre strong enough or have the muscle memory to shoot like a master all the time, then why bother with sights?

This doesn't explain the scopes though... Maybe those are upgraded versions?

More than likely though, I dont think they though about it at all. Rule of Cool > Logic.

AtariAssasin wrote:It's all speculation obviously, but in Gundam for example, there are camera's on some guns, that feed directly into the pilot's screens.

Such equipment exists in 40k as well:

"A mono-sight is an optical sensor worn over one eye, attached to the fighter's weapon by a power link. The fighter sees an enhanced image and superimposed targeting reticule with its crosshairs clearly showing where his shot will land.
The high resolution of the image makes this sight useful only from a stable platform; it is of no advantage to a shooter who is moving. For this reason the mono-sight is designed to be attached to heavy weapons, although they can also be fitted to basic or special weapons."
- Necromunda

"Average and advanced bionic eyes may also incorporate any of the gunsights listed later, or multiple types of gunsight. However, unlike a gunsight the character does not have to aim to use a bionic eye. [...]
Any or all bionic senses can be incorporated into a helmet as auto-senses. This is lost if the helmet is not worn or is destroyed."
- Inquisitor RPG

AtariAssasin wrote:This doesn't explain the scopes though... Maybe those are upgraded versions?

Either a more capable version or (more likely) a different type of sight. Rangefinders, Infrascopes, Motion-Predictors are all different kinds of sights, and I would suspect that helmets would usually only offer a basic "point and shoot" version that is perfectly sufficient for close range engagements (meaning, where bolt weapons are meant to be used). For true long range accuracy, you get the scopes as optional equipment - such as the M40 targeter which can turn an ordinary boltgun into an impromptu sniper rifle, used to high effect by the Ordo Xenos Deathwatch in combination with stalker shells and a silencer.

AtariAssasin wrote:More than likely though, I dont think they though about it at all. Rule of Cool > Logic.

I think they did spent some thought on it (see the fluff, or the miniature in the spoiler) - but "rule of cool" overrides such details being a necessity. Warriors without helmets have more character, so the heroes won't get any, regardless of how much their aim might suffer.

Although it should be pointed out that it is quite possible for bolt weapons used by people who have neither a helmet nor bionics or a monosight (Commissars for example) coming equipped with actual ironsights, even if the minis may not show it. I mean, nobody here would assume that humans in 40k have webbed hands just because we never see a mini where the fingers are separated, right?

Black Templars literally chain their bolters onto their armor, so a stock would hardly help them much. Maybe other marines are all like, "I wish i was MAN enough to do that..." and try to do it themselves until they realize that the Chaos Space Marines stole all their chains on the way to the Eye of Terror, but by then it's too late, they're already in the fight, stockless.

Well, it doesn't look like anyone has posted this, but this is what the second edition plastic bolters looked like.
http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2012/1/25/321511_md-Old%20Sprue.jpg

The stocks didn't really fit the marine arms very well, so quite a lot of people just cut them off in the end.