Is anywhere mentioned weight of a Guard standart Heavy Bolter, Autocannon or Lascannon?

Or in refence to real weapons, how much it could be?

My toughts:
I'll use Sgt. Harker as an example. He can handle Heavy Bolter witn an ease. Codex says he's stronger than average Catachan, who is in common stronger than average Cadian.
It's like Vietnam era M60 Machine Gun. It weights about 11Kgs, but normal soldier could handle it without bigger problems. Which means, if Harker is significantly stronger than average human (Cadian), it must weight significantly more than M60.
My guess is about 20 to 30Kgs.


Thank you

It's much, much bigger than an M60. An M60 fires a 7.62mm round, a Heavy Bolter fires a 25mm round. Dark Heresy has the weights for a heavy bolter listed somewhere, but I don't have access to my books at the moment to check.

I can say that a lascannon weighs 55 kilograms, according to DH.

 Psienesis wrote:
It's much, much bigger than an M60. An M60 fires a 7.62mm round, a Heavy Bolter fires a 25mm round. Dark Heresy has the weights for a heavy bolter listed somewhere, but I don't have access to my books at the moment to check.

I can say that a lascannon weighs 55 kilograms, according to DH.

¨

Seems rather light. They're pretty big fethers.



On the other hand, the model scale is completely whacked so it would not surprise me if it wasn't that big.

55kg is still 100+ pounds for a weapon that is, basically, a giant flashlight.

It would also vary on which kind, because Imperial equipment is not always quite so standardized.

Probably being in the same weight class like this baby.
+/- a few kg.

Probably around there, yeah.

It depends a lot on the material. It also looks considerably bigger to me.

Its weight would only be that high on 1G worlds. Suspensors are noted throughout the fluff as being able to help with heavy weapons and if the model is on a light gravity world they could carry even a lascanno around relatively easily, if not stop it easily once it starts moving

 Flinty wrote:
Its weight would only be that high on 1G worlds. Suspensors are noted throughout the fluff as being able to help with heavy weapons and if the model is on a light gravity world they could carry even a lascanno around relatively easily, if not stop it easily once it starts moving

That may be right, but not every every Forgeworld/Hiveworld/etc is capable of building their weaponry with suspensors, so there is always a place for standard weight weapons.

a Heavy Bolter differs in size, and weight by the pattern.
but I would imagine they would generally be roughly the same as lugging one of these around.



its portable....ish. Its best fired from tripod or vehicle mounted (like a HB). If you were crazy strong you could in theory pick it up and fire it with modifications to the trigger and another hand hold on the body or barrel.
heck if you added a big blockly front end to it you have a HB....

the recoil would be like that of a heavy jackhammer, so being incredibly strong you could wield it....

 Engine of War wrote:
a Heavy Bolter differs in size, and weight by the pattern.
but I would imagine they would generally be roughly the same as lugging one of these around.



its portable....ish. Its best fired from tripod or vehicle mounted (like a HB). If you were crazy strong you could in theory pick it up and fire it with modifications to the trigger and another hand hold on the body or barrel.
heck if you added a big blockly front end to it you have a HB....

the recoil would be like that of a heavy jackhammer, so being incredibly strong you could wield it....

That cannot be fired standing... and putting your hand on the barrel when you fire will burn your hand so badly. Thats if you are standing after kick back. Even if you could stand and shoot it there is no way you would hit anything remotely far away. (i never model harker with a HMG, i think its crazy, i give him a lighter looking weapon).

the heavy stubber can be fired standing (like an a LMG)

Heavy Bolter is like a HMG, must be mounted or set up to be fired. I mean common, this weapon fires grenades... rapidly...

To the best of my knowledge you need to have specially modified weapons to fire them standing. Many LMGs have areas on the barrel to hold so you can fire standing (also helps when removing the barrel) but they also need to wear special gloves to fire it standing to avoid being burned. But firing a machine gun on the move isnt what they where made for, they can do it but i am very certain its advisable to have it set up so you can fire it to full effect. After all 1 machine gun is over a third of a teams fire power. Its vital that a machine gun is set up in the right place to provide its full effect. Shooting on the move is pretty wasteful.

However it does look pretty epic...

But its not just from weight as much as its impractical.

Remember, Harker is a beast of a man. He is much taller than the average guardsman, and he comes from a world with especially high gravity. He is built like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his youth, only broader and taller, with added grim-darkness and GW plot magic. It's still a bit silly that he can move and fire it accurately when a Space Marine can't, but that is GW special characters for you.

 Bonde wrote:
Remember, Harker is a beast of a man. He is much taller than the average guardsman, and he comes from a world with especially high gravity. He is built like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his youth, only broader and taller, with added grim-darkness and GW plot magic. It's still a bit silly that he can move and fire it accurately when a Space Marine can't, but that is GW special characters for you.

Weight isnt the only factor though. Its also a huge gun, how do you hold it in a way you can shoot it? He would have to have his own modified version for it to work. If at all. I prefer my men to be a little more beleivable personally.

Heavy Bolters weigh a lot. I mean, A LOT. Then consider the weight of the ammo. You have a gun capable of firing 1.5" caliber rounds, and a belt of at least a hundred of those rounds on your person....

There is a reason that IG weapons are modeled as crew-serviced guns.

Generally, heavy weapons are too big, too heavy, too cumbersome, and have too much recoil to be fired at the hip by one individual. Harker has a strength of 4, which is equivalent to a Space Marine. That should give you some idea of what kind of a mutant freak Harker is. If a strength of 3 is "average human" and 4 is "7ft tall genetically enhanced super warrior" just imagine how much strength it must take to hip shoot that heavy bolter. And the recoil. Ouch.

Well, SoB are known to carry heavy weapons on foot. There is, however, one catch: they have metal braces around the arm with which they carry them.
I think that's enough evidence to prove that your average human would be unable to carry a heavy weapon without some kind of brace or support.
Since they are roughly twice the weight as their assault counterparts, I'd say it's around 20-30kg for the heavy ones and 10-15 for the assault ones.

Especially the recoil would be an issue. Bolters are repeatedly stated between 'Recoil difficult for humans to handle' and 'if a normal human were to fire the boltgun, the resulting recoil would rip their arm from its socket.' (Talking about Astartes boltguns in the second one, mind.)

Imagine what a Heavy Bolter would do to your arm socket, lol.

Quite interesting discussion we got here.

Firing from a hip is one thing, weight of a gun second and recoil third.
Just imagine how kick .303cal, how .50cal and how 1.0cal Bolter round.
0,50cal is very difficult to shoot standing, now imagine 2 times bigger projectile.

(Just for fun, search Youtube for shooting .700 Nitro Express. )

I'm asking because I'm making a guy with handheld autocannon out of a Cadian. My first tought was creating someone as Harker. Now i decided to build an exoskeleton for him. It would be more realistic and fluff wise.

Thank you all

Edit// Sorry, my bad.

Incidentally, a HB is 1.0 cal, not 1.5cal. Standard boltround is .75cal.

depends on the model too, harker has a more compact looking SM version of the HB, compared to the larger pintle mounted one the guard have.

add to the fact that the scale is wayyyy off, the HB should be 1" caliber, but if you measure the scale model, its like 3"

but people saying 20-35kg or more seems about right.

 Psienesis wrote:
Incidentally, a HB is 1.0 cal, not 1.5cal. Standard boltround is .75cal.

I've seen it listed as 1.5" before. I think it varies a lot, depending on the source. Everyone seems to agree that bolters are .75", but FFG says 1" for HEavy B's while older (practically ancient) studio material said 1.5"...

Brother Michael wrote:
I think that's enough evidence to prove that your average human would be unable to carry a heavy weapon without some kind of brace or support.

Unable to carry is a bit of a stretch. The impression I had of the IG weapons teams is that when they move one carries the weapon, and the other carries the tripod/ammunition etc. Definatly very dam hard to fire without proper set up, and not something non-extraordinary people are going to be firing from the hip. There is precedence for single person heavy weapon users aside from Harrker though: back in the days of Necromunda a 'heavy' could wield his heavy weapon with the same (relative) ease as a space marine, and he didn't even need S4 to do it.

 Bonde wrote:
Remember, Harker is a beast of a man. He is much taller than the average guardsman, and he comes from a world with especially high gravity. He is built like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his youth, only broader and taller, with added grim-darkness and GW plot magic. It's still a bit silly that he can move and fire it accurately when a Space Marine can't, but that is GW special characters for you.

Catachan is a deathworld, but its not a high-g world. Also, I say again, Harker can fire his gun because suspensors exist in 40k.

 Psienesis wrote:
55kg is still 100+ pounds for a weapon that is, basically, a giant flashlight.

Lasers are incredibly bulky. Our modern day almost equal to the lascannon, the Thel laser, is well.



That's just the firing mechanism. The gigantic thing under is how the energy is generated, and all it does is pop missiles. It isn't even close to the point of boring holes through tanks and aircraft with no problem and nigh ignoring refracting problems with elements in the air. The fact that it weighs just a hundred plus pounds for what it does is astounding.

And heavy bolters don't function like normal 40mm cannons to my knowledge. They're rocket propelled. There's the initial kick of firing the round, then the blast as the rockets kick in. There might actually be less recoil in that aspect as you wouldn't need as much of a propellent to fire it down the field. Just enough to get it out the barrel and make it accelerate.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
55kg is still 100+ pounds for a weapon that is, basically, a giant flashlight.

Lasers are incredibly bulky. Our modern day almost equal to the lascannon, the Thel laser, is well.

Spoiler:

That's just the firing mechanism. The gigantic thing under is how the energy is generated, and all it does is pop missiles. It isn't even close to the point of boring holes through tanks and aircraft with no problem and nigh ignoring refracting problems with elements in the air. The fact that it weighs just a hundred plus pounds for what it does is astounding.

And heavy bolters don't function like normal 40mm cannons to my knowledge. They're rocket propelled. There's the initial kick of firing the round, then the blast as the rockets kick in. There might actually be less recoil in that aspect as you wouldn't need as much of a propellent to fire it down the field. Just enough to get it out the barrel and make it accelerate.

I heard one of the big problems of lasers is finding a way to dissipate the excess energy generated (or radiation cant remember).

But the rocket propelled thing is annoying as there is no exhaust or anything so the gun would be ruined along with the user. It would have to travel a decent distance away from the gun before it can jet off. But then without some form of guidence it would be far from accurite.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
55kg is still 100+ pounds for a weapon that is, basically, a giant flashlight.

Lasers are incredibly bulky. Our modern day almost equal to the lascannon, the Thel laser, is well.

Spoiler:

That's just the firing mechanism. The gigantic thing under is how the energy is generated, and all it does is pop missiles. It isn't even close to the point of boring holes through tanks and aircraft with no problem and nigh ignoring refracting problems with elements in the air. The fact that it weighs just a hundred plus pounds for what it does is astounding.

And heavy bolters don't function like normal 40mm cannons to my knowledge. They're rocket propelled. There's the initial kick of firing the round, then the blast as the rockets kick in. There might actually be less recoil in that aspect as you wouldn't need as much of a propellent to fire it down the field. Just enough to get it out the barrel and make it accelerate.

I heard one of the big problems of lasers is finding a way to dissipate the excess energy generated (or radiation cant remember).

But the rocket propelled thing is annoying as there is no exhaust or anything so the gun would be ruined along with the user. It would have to travel a decent distance away from the gun before it can jet off. But then without some form of guidence it would be far from accurite.

Easily done enough to guide the shell.

Really, we could build a functioning bolter in real life. Just that it's not exactly practical for us as we don't fight heavily armored xenos enemies. Or have access to admantanium for that matter, which is a crucial part of the bolt shell.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
55kg is still 100+ pounds for a weapon that is, basically, a giant flashlight.

Lasers are incredibly bulky. Our modern day almost equal to the lascannon, the Thel laser, is well.

Spoiler:

That's just the firing mechanism. The gigantic thing under is how the energy is generated, and all it does is pop missiles. It isn't even close to the point of boring holes through tanks and aircraft with no problem and nigh ignoring refracting problems with elements in the air. The fact that it weighs just a hundred plus pounds for what it does is astounding.

And heavy bolters don't function like normal 40mm cannons to my knowledge. They're rocket propelled. There's the initial kick of firing the round, then the blast as the rockets kick in. There might actually be less recoil in that aspect as you wouldn't need as much of a propellent to fire it down the field. Just enough to get it out the barrel and make it accelerate.

I heard one of the big problems of lasers is finding a way to dissipate the excess energy generated (or radiation cant remember).

But the rocket propelled thing is annoying as there is no exhaust or anything so the gun would be ruined along with the user. It would have to travel a decent distance away from the gun before it can jet off. But then without some form of guidence it would be far from accurite.

Spoiler:

Easily done enough to guide the shell.

Really, we could build a functioning bolter in real life. Just that it's not exactly practical for us as we don't fight heavily armored xenos enemies. Or have access to admantanium for that matter, which is a crucial part of the bolt shell.

That video didnt show the bolter round rockets going off though... (i couldnt have sound). But i am far from convinced the bolter will ever work without heaps of changes.

And imagine all your weapons being louder tracers (rockets produce a lot of noise and smoke) and when bullets already go far and hard enough there is no need for expensive rocket propelled shells. Your men will be louder and unable to hide. Death sentence guns for whoever is unfortunate enough to have one. Let alone how little ammo you would be able to carry. But Imperium is impractical.

But i definately wouldnt go as far to say the bolter would work in real life. Guns that fire that kind of size bullet are huge and need extreme colling and so on.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
55kg is still 100+ pounds for a weapon that is, basically, a giant flashlight.

Lasers are incredibly bulky. Our modern day almost equal to the lascannon, the Thel laser, is well.

Spoiler:

That's just the firing mechanism. The gigantic thing under is how the energy is generated, and all it does is pop missiles. It isn't even close to the point of boring holes through tanks and aircraft with no problem and nigh ignoring refracting problems with elements in the air. The fact that it weighs just a hundred plus pounds for what it does is astounding.

And heavy bolters don't function like normal 40mm cannons to my knowledge. They're rocket propelled. There's the initial kick of firing the round, then the blast as the rockets kick in. There might actually be less recoil in that aspect as you wouldn't need as much of a propellent to fire it down the field. Just enough to get it out the barrel and make it accelerate.

I heard one of the big problems of lasers is finding a way to dissipate the excess energy generated (or radiation cant remember).

But the rocket propelled thing is annoying as there is no exhaust or anything so the gun would be ruined along with the user. It would have to travel a decent distance away from the gun before it can jet off. But then without some form of guidence it would be far from accurite.

Spoiler:

Easily done enough to guide the shell.

Really, we could build a functioning bolter in real life. Just that it's not exactly practical for us as we don't fight heavily armored xenos enemies. Or have access to admantanium for that matter, which is a crucial part of the bolt shell.

That video didnt show the bolter round rockets going off though... (i couldnt have sound). But i am far from convinced the bolter will ever work without heaps of changes.

And imagine all your weapons being louder tracers (rockets produce a lot of noise and smoke) and when bullets already go far and hard enough there is no need for expensive rocket propelled shells. Your men will be louder and unable to hide. Death sentence guns for whoever is unfortunate enough to have one. Let alone how little ammo you would be able to carry. But Imperium is impractical.

But i definately wouldnt go as far to say the bolter would work in real life. Guns that fire that kind of size bullet are huge and need extreme colling and so on.

Oh no, it'd work. Just that it'd be useless in real life. Like how we have functioning laser arrays and railguns, just that they're in prototype or eat up so much energy and space they're not useful on modern battlefields. Also, while the video is good, I'd reckon that bolter shells are normally a lot longer than depicted rather than the fat shape of 40mm rounds. The IOM benefits from magitech and being 20,000 years more advanced than us.


Really, a bolt would look more like the above than a squat 40mm styled slug like in the video. Maybe even have fins that deploy after firing like with some modern rounds (guided sniper shells are a thing now).

As for what they use, bolters would actually be better than something like a lasgun or a lascannon. I'd rather have a tracer shell where it's still somewhat hard to tell where it came from that an intense laser that is typically described as being extremely bright and scarlet red that's a direct line from you and the target. There's really no 'stealth' for the Imperium unless you're using special commando teams or for Astartes, use suppressed bolters (haven't a fething clue how that works).

Ok hold up... The only thing close to a bolter shell being used in real life was one of hitlers wonder weapons. It had to sit in a hill bunker complex, it used magnets and rocketry to propell the shell accross the channel. It had an extensive vent system and the shell wasnt too big either. I am not sure if it even got to fire...

Other than that i am far from convinced a bolter round can be made (along with a portable weapon) today. for one the gun would have to be HUGE and heavy, the round would be loud and visible, it would not be accurite and it would not be able to be aimed easily and the gun would need some kind of super freezer to keep it cool.

Rail guns yes, but thats not what we are talking about.

And also the idea of a boltgun in every way is impractical for real life.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ok hold up... The only thing close to a bolter shell being used in real life was one of hitlers wonder weapons. It had to sit in a hill bunker complex, it used magnets and rocketry to propell the shell accross the channel. It had an extensive vent system and the shell wasnt too big either. I am not sure if it even got to fire...

Other than that i am far from convinced a bolter round can be made (along with a portable weapon) today. for one the gun would have to be HUGE and heavy, the round would be loud and visible, it would not be accurite and it would not be able to be aimed easily and the gun would need some kind of super freezer to keep it cool.

Rail guns yes, but thats not what we are talking about.

And also the idea of a boltgun in every way is impractical for real life.

Lolwut? No, they're called grenade launchers. They serve the exact same purpose, only airburst launchers are designed for multiple casualty infliction while the bolter typically tries to cause a single casualty. We could build one quite easily with modern day tech, just that it would lack the specific range and penetration power, but it'd function just the same. Only we don't need it because we don't fight aliens with hide having the strength of heavy armor or giant battlemechs. But we have the tech to make a heavy gun out of them. It'd be a large 20mm shell, but it'd work.

We have the technology to make guided shells, just they'd be a lot longer to make room for the booster. Hell, we actually are a step above the Imperium as we could make those shells guided. Because self guided bullets are now a thing as of 2012 and increase accuracy of snipers for long-distance targets. The only problem keeping us from making one besides it being a toy is the expense of doing so and it's lack of use on a modern battlefield.



We could definitely build a bolter turret minus the alien alloys we don't have access to in reality. You couldn't shoulder it unless you wanted a busted arm, but we could certainly make it.

For some reason, I always pictured the Lascannon as being very light for a weapon of it's size. It's a laser weapon so the only heft would be in the heat sink for it. It probably depends on the world and material they are made out of. Maybe from some worlds it's made out of a hyper advanced space metal and on others it's made out of wrought iron? Just some fan speculation there.

The heavy bolter is referred to being... well.. heavy. In the IG codex it's called the "Back breaker" if I remember right.

Why aren't these weapons on wheel, though? They aren't exactly man portable being the size of modern howitzers. Unless they are a lot lighter than you think.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I prefer my men to be a little more beleivable personally.

If you want your little men to be believable, then you picked the wrong game.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ok hold up... The only thing close to a bolter shell being used in real life was one of hitlers wonder weapons. It had to sit in a hill bunker complex, it used magnets and rocketry to propell the shell accross the channel. It had an extensive vent system and the shell wasnt too big either. I am not sure if it even got to fire...

Other than that i am far from convinced a bolter round can be made (along with a portable weapon) today. for one the gun would have to be HUGE and heavy, the round would be loud and visible, it would not be accurite and it would not be able to be aimed easily and the gun would need some kind of super freezer to keep it cool.

Rail guns yes, but thats not what we are talking about.

And also the idea of a boltgun in every way is impractical for real life.

Lolwut? No, they're called grenade launchers. They serve the exact same purpose, only airburst launchers are designed for multiple casualty infliction while the bolter typically tries to cause a single casualty. We could build one quite easily with modern day tech, just that it would lack the specific range and penetration power, but it'd function just the same. Only we don't need it because we don't fight aliens with hide having the strength of heavy armor or giant battlemechs. But we have the tech to make a heavy gun out of them. It'd be a large 20mm shell, but it'd work.

We have the technology to make guided shells, just they'd be a lot longer to make room for the booster. Hell, we actually are a step above the Imperium as we could make those shells guided. Because self guided bullets are now a thing as of 2012 and increase accuracy of snipers for long-distance targets. The only problem keeping us from making one besides it being a toy is the expense of doing so and it's lack of use on a modern battlefield.

Spoiler:

We could definitely build a bolter turret minus the alien alloys we don't have access to in reality. You couldn't shoulder it unless you wanted a busted arm, but we could certainly make it.

grenade launchers arent rocket propelled nor are hand held ones fully automatic... grenade launchers arent homing and fire in arcs.

Right now all i see is the assumption we can make it because we have SOME of the things that make a bolter, but we dont have a way at all to combine it all into one small package.

Find me a weapon thats anything like a bolter. Find me a real life fully automatic .75 round weapon that fires explosive rocket propelled shells that are handheld and dont kill the user.

Then i will reply.

Black Crusade lists a heavy bolter as 40kg, and "legion" heavy bolters (Space Marine versions) as 45kg.

That's heavy as gak. I realize now that one of my players who was carrying an autocannon (also 40kg) was 6kg over her carrying limit...

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ok hold up... The only thing close to a bolter shell being used in real life was one of hitlers wonder weapons. It had to sit in a hill bunker complex, it used magnets and rocketry to propell the shell accross the channel. It had an extensive vent system and the shell wasnt too big either. I am not sure if it even got to fire...

Other than that i am far from convinced a bolter round can be made (along with a portable weapon) today. for one the gun would have to be HUGE and heavy, the round would be loud and visible, it would not be accurite and it would not be able to be aimed easily and the gun would need some kind of super freezer to keep it cool.

Rail guns yes, but thats not what we are talking about.

And also the idea of a boltgun in every way is impractical for real life.

Lolwut? No, they're called grenade launchers. They serve the exact same purpose, only airburst launchers are designed for multiple casualty infliction while the bolter typically tries to cause a single casualty. We could build one quite easily with modern day tech, just that it would lack the specific range and penetration power, but it'd function just the same. Only we don't need it because we don't fight aliens with hide having the strength of heavy armor or giant battlemechs. But we have the tech to make a heavy gun out of them. It'd be a large 20mm shell, but it'd work.

We have the technology to make guided shells, just they'd be a lot longer to make room for the booster. Hell, we actually are a step above the Imperium as we could make those shells guided. Because self guided bullets are now a thing as of 2012 and increase accuracy of snipers for long-distance targets. The only problem keeping us from making one besides it being a toy is the expense of doing so and it's lack of use on a modern battlefield.

Spoiler:

We could definitely build a bolter turret minus the alien alloys we don't have access to in reality. You couldn't shoulder it unless you wanted a busted arm, but we could certainly make it.

grenade launchers arent rocket propelled nor are hand held ones fully automatic... grenade launchers arent homing and fire in arcs.

Right now all i see is the assumption we can make it because we have SOME of the things that make a bolter, but we dont have a way at all to combine it all into one small package.

Find me a weapon thats anything like a bolter. Find me a real life fully automatic .75 round weapon that fires explosive rocket propelled shells that are handheld and dont kill the user.

Then i will reply.

We don't have one because it's redundant to use against people. The point stands however that we have the tech to make one if we wanted, just that it'd be pointless for us to use. Obviously it wouldn't be carried around like a normal rifle, rather an AT weapon mounted on a large tripod manned by a full crew rather than a single person weapon.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ok hold up... The only thing close to a bolter shell being used in real life was one of hitlers wonder weapons. It had to sit in a hill bunker complex, it used magnets and rocketry to propell the shell accross the channel. It had an extensive vent system and the shell wasnt too big either. I am not sure if it even got to fire...

Other than that i am far from convinced a bolter round can be made (along with a portable weapon) today. for one the gun would have to be HUGE and heavy, the round would be loud and visible, it would not be accurite and it would not be able to be aimed easily and the gun would need some kind of super freezer to keep it cool.

Rail guns yes, but thats not what we are talking about.

And also the idea of a boltgun in every way is impractical for real life.

Lolwut? No, they're called grenade launchers. They serve the exact same purpose, only airburst launchers are designed for multiple casualty infliction while the bolter typically tries to cause a single casualty. We could build one quite easily with modern day tech, just that it would lack the specific range and penetration power, but it'd function just the same. Only we don't need it because we don't fight aliens with hide having the strength of heavy armor or giant battlemechs. But we have the tech to make a heavy gun out of them. It'd be a large 20mm shell, but it'd work.

We have the technology to make guided shells, just they'd be a lot longer to make room for the booster. Hell, we actually are a step above the Imperium as we could make those shells guided. Because self guided bullets are now a thing as of 2012 and increase accuracy of snipers for long-distance targets. The only problem keeping us from making one besides it being a toy is the expense of doing so and it's lack of use on a modern battlefield.

Spoiler:

We could definitely build a bolter turret minus the alien alloys we don't have access to in reality. You couldn't shoulder it unless you wanted a busted arm, but we could certainly make it.

grenade launchers arent rocket propelled nor are hand held ones fully automatic... grenade launchers arent homing and fire in arcs.

Right now all i see is the assumption we can make it because we have SOME of the things that make a bolter, but we dont have a way at all to combine it all into one small package.

Find me a weapon thats anything like a bolter. Find me a real life fully automatic .75 round weapon that fires explosive rocket propelled shells that are handheld and dont kill the user.

Then i will reply.

We don't have one because it's redundant to use against people. The point stands however that we have the tech to make one if we wanted, just that it'd be pointless for us to use. Obviously it wouldn't be carried around like a normal rifle, rather an AT weapon mounted on a large tripod manned by a full crew rather than a single person weapon.

Exactly, we cant. A crewed artillery peice is nothing at all like a bolter. I have already said we can do those. Miniaturized ones are not possible.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ok hold up... The only thing close to a bolter shell being used in real life was one of hitlers wonder weapons. It had to sit in a hill bunker complex, it used magnets and rocketry to propell the shell accross the channel. It had an extensive vent system and the shell wasnt too big either. I am not sure if it even got to fire...

Other than that i am far from convinced a bolter round can be made (along with a portable weapon) today. for one the gun would have to be HUGE and heavy, the round would be loud and visible, it would not be accurite and it would not be able to be aimed easily and the gun would need some kind of super freezer to keep it cool.

Rail guns yes, but thats not what we are talking about.

And also the idea of a boltgun in every way is impractical for real life.

Lolwut? No, they're called grenade launchers. They serve the exact same purpose, only airburst launchers are designed for multiple casualty infliction while the bolter typically tries to cause a single casualty. We could build one quite easily with modern day tech, just that it would lack the specific range and penetration power, but it'd function just the same. Only we don't need it because we don't fight aliens with hide having the strength of heavy armor or giant battlemechs. But we have the tech to make a heavy gun out of them. It'd be a large 20mm shell, but it'd work.

We have the technology to make guided shells, just they'd be a lot longer to make room for the booster. Hell, we actually are a step above the Imperium as we could make those shells guided. Because self guided bullets are now a thing as of 2012 and increase accuracy of snipers for long-distance targets. The only problem keeping us from making one besides it being a toy is the expense of doing so and it's lack of use on a modern battlefield.

Spoiler:

We could definitely build a bolter turret minus the alien alloys we don't have access to in reality. You couldn't shoulder it unless you wanted a busted arm, but we could certainly make it.

grenade launchers arent rocket propelled nor are hand held ones fully automatic... grenade launchers arent homing and fire in arcs.

Right now all i see is the assumption we can make it because we have SOME of the things that make a bolter, but we dont have a way at all to combine it all into one small package.

Find me a weapon thats anything like a bolter. Find me a real life fully automatic .75 round weapon that fires explosive rocket propelled shells that are handheld and dont kill the user.

Then i will reply.

We don't have one because it's redundant to use against people. The point stands however that we have the tech to make one if we wanted, just that it'd be pointless for us to use. Obviously it wouldn't be carried around like a normal rifle, rather an AT weapon mounted on a large tripod manned by a full crew rather than a single person weapon.

Exactly, we cant. A crewed artillery peice is nothing at all like a bolter. I have already said we can do those. Miniaturized ones are not possible.

Gee, I wonder what that is. Oh, right, a crew-served heavy cannon AKA an IG heavy bolter.

The heavy bolter is not a crew served artillery piece.

 Swastakowey wrote:
The heavy bolter is not a crew served artillery piece.

Because in W40K scale it's simply an HMG. In modern combat, it's firepower is equal to that of a light cannon. It sure as feth wouldn't have two guys handling extremely dangerous ammunition that could accidentally detonate before use thanks to the mass reactive cap.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The heavy bolter is not a crew served artillery piece.

Because in W40K scale it's simply an HMG. In modern combat, it's firepower is equal to that of a light cannon. It sure as feth wouldn't have two guys handling extremely dangerous ammunition that could accidentally detonate before use thanks to the mass reactive cap.

No its not. You know very little on the topic it seems

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The heavy bolter is not a crew served artillery piece.

Because in W40K scale it's simply an HMG. In modern combat, it's firepower is equal to that of a light cannon. It sure as feth wouldn't have two guys handling extremely dangerous ammunition that could accidentally detonate before use thanks to the mass reactive cap.

No its not. You know very little on the topic it seems

Uh, yes it is. It's a 1.00 Caliber cannon firing rocket propelled shells at possibly full-auto and belt fed. The rounds are extremely lethal and pretty much have blasting caps on the front and serves as no viable good counter to anything on the battlefield to date besides simply being a fun toy. We could build one with modern tech, hell, we've built better things than it. The problem with it is that it's pretty much three different weapons all rolled into one that ends up as a jack of none. It's mean to counter super-heavy infantry, which we don't have on the battlefield currently and thus do just fine and dandy with 40mm grenade launchers, especially airburst which will destroy more than a single infantry target like a heavy bolter. There's no reason why we couldn't build one, we have the tech. It'd probably take five years or more to design I'd guess if it was well funded, just that it's completely useless on the modern battlefield unlike in W40K. However there's absolutely no reason why we couldn't build a heavy bolter. The reason why we don't is because we're not stupid (or at least not to the degree to build a pointless weapon with no purpose other than to be fun to use). The only thing we couldn't do is give it the penetration power it has in W40K thanks to our lack of access to any magical admantanium super-metal. That and the size of the round, which would likely be a bit longer and maybe a tad thicker in order to store more fuel and space to fire the round out of the gun before igniting the rockets.

uhuh and people in the 50s said we had the tech to build biospheres. And as most of those claims (like yours) is bull crap.

And no its not an artillery piece. Go learn what artillery is.

 Swastakowey wrote:
uhuh and people in the 50s said we had the tech to build biospheres. And as most of those claims (like yours) is bull crap.

And no its not an artillery piece. Go learn what artillery is.

It's a crew manned anti-armor gun. That's what a bolter is. There really is no disputing this, as it's not an anti infantry gun, those are what stubbers are for. It's mean to counter heavily armored infantry that we have no equivalent to besides light tanks.

And did you even pay attention to what I posted? All a bolt is, is a mass reactive RPG with an additional charge to kick the shell out of the gun before the mini rockets fire and spin it to its target. That's all a bolter is. You know what it's made to fight? Heavy heavy infantry and light vehicles. Tyranids, Astartes and MEQ, Carapace armor, and the bigger Ork Boyz. There's nothing like these in real life. The only thing it'd be useful at all for fighting is light armor (although still be fairly crappy because we don't have super strong magical) alloys. But the point is that we could make a functional mass-reactive RPG automatic gun. It'd work. There's no reason why it wouldn't. But all it'd be good for is just showing off how big your is to everyone else and nothing else. It'd be an ace of none. Great at taking down single infantry with direct hits.... but hard to aim and would likely need a new barrel fast from even burst fire depending on how much fuel is packed into the round or gunpowder to get it out of the barrel. It might punch through light armor... but by the time you'd carried over, set it up, and loaded it and brought new barrels in case they melt... you could have already killed the armor long before with modern AT weapons. You could use it against fortified positions like a bunker.... but standard bolts are only really useful for single targets, where using an airburst frag or simply firing a rocket at the structure would be more effective and fast.

We could build it, easily within several years. The problem is that it'd be large, bulky, and pretty much useless. And require a crew to maintain the weapon to make sure the barrel wasn't toasted by any sustained fire (again, depending on how the rounds are made). It'd also likely be larger, and certainly couldn't be carried around by two guys (although that's already outlandish and requires the two guys to be superhuman or vastly above average), with the barrel also likely being much longer than standard and having to be swapped out similar to German MG crews swapping the barrels of MG42 from sustained fire, only with significantly less fire with the HB.

However, as it'd be firing a 1.00 Caliber Mass-Reactive round, it'd fullfill the definition of a Heavy Bolter. Which has also varied greatly in design in W40K.

Edit-

And we did build a mostly functioning biosphere. Really man, times, keep up with them. We have the tech to build a heavy bolter equal with modern day tech (just suffering from less penetration power and likely range), just that a fething Patton from World War II would be more useful. The only reason why weapons as outlandish as the heavy bolter exist in W40K is their arms race with armor, which armor's significantly won so far- although it helps the guys with the armor are a posthuman augmented effectual subspecies of humanity.

Yea every time you say "we could build it in several years but, but, but..." all that shows is you are speculating. Artillery is not an anti armour gun either. Nor is it an rpg? Make up your mind.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yea every time you say "we could build it in several years but, but, but..." all that shows is you are speculating. Artillery is not an anti armour gun either. Nor is it an rpg? Make up your mind.

That's because that's what are version of what it would be. And by AT, I mean anti-tank, not artillery. It'd be similar to the old anti tank guns if it wasn't mounted on a vehicle. It wouldn't be like the HMG it's seen as in W40K, rather a heavy gun more complex than your usual full auto 40mm frag launchers due to the rounds being rocket-propelled along with being mass reactive.



And the speculation is because you don't simply churn out a weapon in a year, we don't pull new weapons systems of thin air, it takes years of research (feth, just look at the poor XM8 and other lightweight rifle projects). Building a functioning bolter is completely within our technology as of now (especially with nanotech computer chips capable of being fitted into bullets). The problem is packaging everything together, but we could certainly do it with funds put into the project building off the current tech of guided bullets and explosives. Just that the reward would be pretty much a useless brick for what would be millions of dollars of investment. Woopee.

Because in other words we cant make it without learning. Saying we just need to do this etc is not backed up by anything but speculation. Now im sick of reading your pointless rants on how we dont yet know how to make a bolter (which is what im saying anyways) and its wildly off topic so ill leave you to your ramblings and ill think what i think.

You may be right, give several years (however long that may be) and maybe its possible but not now. We cannot make one yet. As i stated. Not that the concept of the heavy bolter works anyway.

So lets leave it.

Applying even a modicum of real-world physics or common sense to 40k fluff will make your head hurt. Don't even bother. Heavy weapons are heavy.

 Harriticus wrote:
Applying even a modicum of real-world physics or common sense to 40k fluff will make your head hurt. Don't even bother. Heavy weapons are heavy.

Definitely something i have learnt over the last few days. I am officially not going to bother with the fluff anymore haha. It just doesnt sit right.

Dark Heresy puts a HB at 40kg.

 Harriticus wrote:
Applying even a modicum of real-world physics or common sense to 40k fluff will make your head hurt. Don't even bother. Heavy weapons are heavy.

Well, humanity is a race of reality warpers capable of manipulating the world around them in W40K.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Because in other words we cant make it without learning. Saying we just need to do this etc is not backed up by anything but speculation. Now im sick of reading your pointless rants on how we dont yet know how to make a bolter (which is what im saying anyways) and its wildly off topic so ill leave you to your ramblings and ill think what i think.

You may be right, give several years (however long that may be) and maybe its possible but not now. We cannot make one yet. As i stated. Not that the concept of the heavy bolter works anyway.

So lets leave it.

It's pretty irritating to see him put together such a well-constructed and intelligent post and you throw it away with an ignorant rant.

I could give you a pile of lumber, nails, screws, and etc. and you couldn't build a house in a day either. It takes designing and engineering no matter how easy and known the separate components are.

We could easily make a bolter now. We have already built all the component parts, just not with certain imaginary materials that 40k claims. It's just incredibly, stupidly impractical.

Ferros wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Because in other words we cant make it without learning. Saying we just need to do this etc is not backed up by anything but speculation. Now im sick of reading your pointless rants on how we dont yet know how to make a bolter (which is what im saying anyways) and its wildly off topic so ill leave you to your ramblings and ill think what i think.

You may be right, give several years (however long that may be) and maybe its possible but not now. We cannot make one yet. As i stated. Not that the concept of the heavy bolter works anyway.

So lets leave it.

It's pretty irritating to see him put together such a well-constructed and intelligent post and you throw it away with an ignorant rant.

I could give you a pile of lumber, nails, screws, and etc. and you couldn't build a house in a day either. It takes designing and engineering no matter how easy and known the separate components are.

We could easily make a bolter now. We have already built all the component parts, just not with certain imaginary materials that 40k claims. It's just incredibly, stupidly impractical.

The problem is that his definition of 'right now' is apparently not the real one. R&D doesn't pull new toys out of its , they spend years, even decades until they give us a nice shiny weapon. We don't suddenly have laser turrets on aircraft and ships because we did it one year 'because we had the capability'. Considering it wouldn't involve building a complex device like a laser and the energy required to power it, but rather just finding the best way to cram a rocket and the black powder to blow it out the gun while keeping it accurate, I don't see why anyone couldn't see it being completely possible with modern tech. Especially considering it's a lot easier now to prototype and test equipment digitally with a computer rather than having to build it from scratch or run off theoretical math that doesn't involve a more trustworthy computer system to run it really speeds up the process. Two decades ago? Unlikely without a decade of work. Now? Pft. Five to six years. Build it in a computer model until you figure out a way to make the round work, then build it in real life and then design a system to deliver the bolt. But I doubt anyone would shell out the money needed for a project like it, so it's unlikely we'd ever see a true bolter in action unless we suddenly develop super heavy infantry clothed in literally impossible metals that cannot exist.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Because in other words we cant make it without learning. Saying we just need to do this etc is not backed up by anything but speculation. Now im sick of reading your pointless rants on how we dont yet know how to make a bolter (which is what im saying anyways) and its wildly off topic so ill leave you to your ramblings and ill think what i think.

You may be right, give several years (however long that may be) and maybe its possible but not now. We cannot make one yet. As i stated. Not that the concept of the heavy bolter works anyway.

So lets leave it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_Weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade_machine_gun

So we've got explosive rounds in the 25mm range with smart fusing and light armour penetrating ability, accurate rocket powered infantry weapons and crew served MGs firing large calibre shells. What are we missing, other than a real life need to put them all together (and the suspensors, of course, to allow one person to fire it easily)?

It's really interesting idea of building IRL Bolter, but please ,stick to the original question.

Thank you.

This is a really cool thread. I don't have much to contribute because I'm not going to pretend to know anything about engineering or weaponry, but the information exchange is very fun to read from you learned folk.

Ok i did some research.

the closest thing to a bolter is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoffTmg9bxU

Unlike the bolter it doesnt have anything to blow it out of the barrel, it goes straight to rocket mode, hence why the gun is covered in vents (as mentioned by me eralier), as a result the weapon is uses caseless rounds. Not terribly accurite. Not explosive, not fully automatic (It would have a very slow RoF), bullets cost more than the gun so not too many test have been done on them since the 60s.

That is the closest thing to a bolter. But to add the components like being guided, a shell, explosives and large caliber wouldnt work. Yet. What you see as the closest real world example is the inability to make it any more than a fancier bullet. No doubt this is where the CONCEPT of the heavy bolter came from (as i recall they used to be caseless) but as you can see there is a huge difference between the 2. The rounds needed would be huge and subsequently need bigger rockets so Personally id say its very very far off ever becoming a reality.

the main point i have and am making is the heavy bolter/bolter is just too small to be feasably made at that caliber and portability. It would end up like an artillery shell, just uselessly expensive.

The only way it could work is if you modify everything about the bolter (therefore no longer making a bolter) but then why do that when you have already got gun which the bolter kinda resembles (due to it being based of this weapon i think) but has been stretched and warped into some weapon that cannot exist. However cool sounding and looking.

I just read about an example of the US navy "firing advanced, gyro assisted, rocket proppelled shells" which is more like the bolter but as i said earlier, its an artillery peice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-assisted_projectile (like many i try not to use wikipedia but sometimes its easier.)

The problem you're having. Swastakowey, is that you're ignoring 28,000 years of arms advancement between now and M30 when the Great Crusade kicks off. That length of time is nearly three times the length of time since Mankind first became a thing and today.

the main point i have and am making is the heavy bolter/bolter is just too small to be feasably made at that caliber and portability. It would end up like an artillery shell, just uselessly expensive.

But they did and can. It's a two-stage gyrojet mass-reactive explosive shell fired from a carbine-style assault weapon.

The heavy version is a bigger two-stage gyrojet mass-reactive explosive shell fired from a hip-aimed, or tripod-mounted, heavy-barrel weapon. It is not designed for one-man operation, unless that one man is a bioengineered super-soldier in a strength-enhancing, nuclear-powered armor-plated linear frame.

The bolter round hits you, its solid diamantine tip smashing through whatever excuse for armor you wear, triggering the microsecond delay of the explosive round until it's inside your body. The round then detonates, basically shattering, which leaves a hole in your chest the size of a man's fist (and probably also collapses both your lungs and shreds your heart. You're fethin' dead!)

Im talking about now dude. Who knows where things will be that far in the future, im not gonna even bother thinking about that haha. But right now the bolter is not possible. Not without so many changes that it no longer becomes a bolter. That was all my post was talking about.

We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

 Psienesis wrote:
We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

Yes but its not rocket propelled is it, nor is it the same caliber. So its a different weapon. There are weapons which share some properties of the bolter but no weapon that can have them all in one.

 Psienesis wrote:
The problem you're having. Swastakowey, is that you're ignoring 28,000 years of arms advancement between now and M30 when the Great Crusade kicks off. That length of time is nearly three times the length of time since Mankind first became a thing and today.

the main point i have and am making is the heavy bolter/bolter is just too small to be feasably made at that caliber and portability. It would end up like an artillery shell, just uselessly expensive.

But they did and can. It's a two-stage gyrojet mass-reactive explosive shell fired from a carbine-style assault weapon.

The heavy version is a bigger two-stage gyrojet mass-reactive explosive shell fired from a hip-aimed, or tripod-mounted, heavy-barrel weapon. It is not designed for one-man operation, unless that one man is a bioengineered super-soldier in a strength-enhancing, nuclear-powered armor-plated linear frame.

The bolter round hits you, its solid diamantine tip smashing through whatever excuse for armor you wear, triggering the microsecond delay of the explosive round until it's inside your body. The round then detonates, basically shattering, which leaves a hole in your chest the size of a man's fist (and probably also collapses both your lungs and shreds your heart. You're fethin' dead!)

In terms of a dual mode explosive, that is not particularly difficult to achieve per say. We've been able to do that since at least the 1960s with anti-runway munitions, and at a certain level since the 40s with bunker buster munitions. Indeed, it does not necessarily require a main munition to achieve the effect. DPU rounds are meant to penetrate and then 'explode' the target (3 rounds from an A-10 can effectively atomize a battle tank), hydro shock pistol rounds are simply shaped to penetrate and then blow out, the 5.56mm round originally designed for the M-16 was actually known to be deflected by leaves in the jungle yet could kill a man by hitting him in the arm (the bullet would penetrate skin or similar material and then fragment inside the body, bouncing off of bones to cause maximum internal trauma beyond say the AK-47's 7.62 which had better penetration).

As a note, you don't need the heavy bolter to blow a hole the size of a man's fist out. A hydroshock round for a 9mm pistol that is manufactured today will do the exact same thing. It also being cheaper and not requiring magical materials. Heck, a .357 revolver will do that with a modern round without needing a hydroshock bullet.

Back on to the original topic, avoiding lighter yet stronger materials, many modern 25mm weapons start around 100kg sans ammunition. They become efficient as anti-material/anti-structural weapons due to their size and also 'punch', but also due to the ammo storage capacity that can be held in a vehicle. Such a weapon, even if possible to make light enough to carry, would be constrained simply by poor ammunition capacity. Even supposing you were strong enough to carry it and fire it, you couldn't carry enough rounds to make it truly worthwhile as an anti personnel weapon. The autogun could carry a 100 round magazine with munitions that would perform just as well for anti infantry, have a better firing rate, make less noise, weigh less, etc than a bolter/heavy bolter. The Marine with a bolter might get 10 bullets in his gun, the IG trooper could get 50, 100 in a smaller, lighter, easier to use weapon that would make him much more of a threat.

I suppose it just feeds the cc imagery 40k likes, the Marines all run around beating you in the face because they would always be out of ammunition long before they've even put a dent in your forces.

Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

Yes but its not rocket propelled is it, nor is it the same caliber. So its a different weapon. There are weapons which share some properties of the bolter but no weapon that can have them all in one.

They could, actually, but what I described would be "close enough" to a bolter (and require no further arms refinements or inventions). It also makes it practical and useable, since we don't actually have Space Marines to wield them.

As others have posted, there's even heavier munitions that are capable of doing what bolters do, as well as ammunition for standard small-arms that get "close enough" to the bolter to replicate it as a weapon of war, for all practical intents and purposes.

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

I know but is it a boltgun? No. Timed explosives have been used in rounds for a very long time. But nothing mentioned in any arsenal is a bolt gun. I read it all and all i see are some guns that have something similar to a bolt gun in one or 2 ways but nothing that works and fires like a boltgun.

Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on. And the close range lethality means nothing to a boltgun because it still technically fires the bullet then the rocket goes off, something we havent made except in the form of artillery shells.

Saying we can make one is just guessing

Close enough isnt a bolter, its an almost bolter. But thats pretty much what i am saying. I dont think its yet possible to put all the bolter features into one package.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

Yes but its not rocket propelled is it, nor is it the same caliber. So its a different weapon. There are weapons which share some properties of the bolter but no weapon that can have them all in one.

Did you now even read the links anyone even posted?! What the hell man, we've all been pointing this out to you, WE DO! We have the tech. We've had it for years. We could start the process of building one right now, and we might even make a better bolter. It's a case of modern technology going beyond the vision. We actually can build something better, and work on making it better than it is in W40K.

As for what the future looks like? Drones, drones drones, smart ammo that guides itself to the target (possibly even capable of rounding corners), laser AA, active camouflage, better armor, and possibly the start of powered suits being produced for logistics rather than combat.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

Yes but its not rocket propelled is it, nor is it the same caliber. So its a different weapon. There are weapons which share some properties of the bolter but no weapon that can have them all in one.

Did you now even read the links anyone even posted?! What the hell man, we've all been pointing this out to you, WE DO! We have the tech. We've had it for years. We could start the process of building one right now, and we might even make a better bolter. It's a case of modern technology going beyond the vision. We actually can build something better, and work on making it better than it is in W40K.

As for what the future looks like? Drones, drones drones, smart ammo that guides itself to the target (possibly even capable of rounding corners), laser AA, active camouflage, better armor, and possibly the start of powered suits being produced for logistics rather than combat.

Yea we have it seperately not all together in one weapon. We have weapons that acheive its effects but not a bolter nor can we say one can be made. At best we can make almost bolters. In fact that one example i gave is more a bolter than anything you guys gave. And well thats not a bolter either.

Future? Who knows dude. Someone tomorrow could stuble accross a new weapon that we have never imagined and change the way we think. Seriously the future is never what we think it is. I agree at the moment things are looking at some of the things you pointed out, but something will come along and change all that, maybe (who knows). Look at what people thought about weapons before and after the world wars. Drastically different views over the course of under 10 years. Crazy stuff.

Should I rename the thread to "IRL theory of Boltgun"?

I'm surprised it still entertain you to argue.

Sorry i will stop now dude, i came back because i found that rocket propelled bullet pistol. Thought it was pretty epic

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

Yes but its not rocket propelled is it, nor is it the same caliber. So its a different weapon. There are weapons which share some properties of the bolter but no weapon that can have them all in one.

Did you now even read the links anyone even posted?! What the hell man, we've all been pointing this out to you, WE DO! We have the tech. We've had it for years. We could start the process of building one right now, and we might even make a better bolter. It's a case of modern technology going beyond the vision. We actually can build something better, and work on making it better than it is in W40K.

As for what the future looks like? Drones, drones drones, smart ammo that guides itself to the target (possibly even capable of rounding corners), laser AA, active camouflage, better armor, and possibly the start of powered suits being produced for logistics rather than combat.

Yea we have it seperately not all together in one weapon. We have weapons that acheive its effects but not a bolter nor can we say one can be made. At best we can make almost bolters. In fact that one example i gave is more a bolter than anything you guys gave. And well thats not a bolter either.

Future? Who knows dude. Someone tomorrow could stuble accross a new weapon that we have never imagined and change the way we think. Seriously the future is never what we think it is. I agree at the moment things are looking at some of the things you pointed out, but something will come along and change all that, maybe (who knows). Look at what people thought about weapons before and after the world wars. Drastically different views over the course of under 10 years. Crazy stuff.

Dude, all the technology I just stated is real and exists currently. In the future it simply will go beyond prototyping and go into full mas production. We already have fully automated bombers and make widespread (and infamous) use of hunter-killer drones. We're developing recon drones soldiers can hold. We're developing offensive drones the size of a Frisbee soldiers can use to deliver a small explosive at an indirect target with minimal collateral. We've developed smart bullets capable of righting themselves mid-flight on the way to their target and increase the accuracy of snipers/riflemen over a mile by eight inches. We've developed point-defense laser turrets now being mounted on ships capable of shooting down missiles, drones, and small naval units/mauling them. We're developing active camouflage for tanks that can disguise their heat signature and make them look like a cow through infra-red. We're developing non-directly piloted tank drones. We've developed powered suits.

We know what the future's going to be like because the future simply is the result of technology we're creating right now which will affect the warfare a decade or possibly even less before it.

And no, you have nothing backing you incredibly strange and hilariously wrong position that we cannot built a heavy bolter. Just because you ignore everyone doesn't make you right.

EDIT-

And OP, the thread's jacked because the purpose was served back on page one. Heavy bolters are over a hundred pounds. Woop, topic done.

Close enough isnt a bolter, its an almost bolter. But thats pretty much what i am saying. I dont think its yet possible to put all the bolter features into one package.

Unfortunately, this is an incorrect assumption. As has been demonstrated, it's very possible. However, you keep moving the goal-posts.

The reason it's not built somewhere is because such a weapon is useless to a real-world, modern military, as it offers no tangible tactical benefit over a standard battle-rifle and costs a hell of a lot more.

Right, I mean, we're not exactly trying to kill unfathomably tough, insanely brave war-loving mushroom-men here.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Sorry i will stop now dude, i came back because i found that rocket propelled bullet pistol. Thought it was pretty epic

It was epic. I didn't know something like this even exist.
I already got answer for my question, but If you want to continue, I can rename the thread to more usitable name.

 Hawky wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Sorry i will stop now dude, i came back because i found that rocket propelled bullet pistol. Thought it was pretty epic

It was epic. I didn't know something like this even exist.
I already got answer for my question, but If you want to continue, I can rename the thread to more usitable name.

No no its all good, now this is seriously the last one. But yea unfortunately the weapon has many flaws which is why its not continued. Along with being expensive. But one day someone might crack it and then boom, we shall have the bolter

In terms of the future of war look at the past dude. World war one? the navy was the future of war, huge dreadnaught ships with amazing weapons and so on. After a few years? They proved useless as the airoplane came into play (which everyone thought would be useless in war by the way). The result? Dreadnaughts where replaced by battleships and other classes and the airforce proved to be huge and evolved quickly.

World war 2 was huge for the tank, first time tanks had ever been used and the way they where used changed drastically over the years, nothing like people thought it would at the time. Let alone how submarines came into play after being dismissed as unconventional and so on by world powers.

Those are 2 basic examples (and i mean basic) of what to expect in the next real conflict. Expect for the way we use our weapons and what we use to change big time over the first part of the war. then the final part of that wars tactics will lay the foundation of future warfare theory only for the same thing to repeat. In an ever evolving system of warfare theory is the only thing you got until the real thing comes.

In short, the future is always a mistery but everything has happened in the past before.

 Swastakowey wrote:


Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on.

10 seconds on Google

http://hackedgadgets.com/2013/08/18/spin-stabilized-rocket/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_(rocket)

Also there are lots of militarised rockets with folding or pop-out fins for stabilisation. The 12g frag round apparently being one of them.

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

That's more or less what I was saying (unless this wasn't directed at me): 25mm is large and heavy, great on a vehicle, bad for infantry (even 7ft tall super soldiers) given that it's effects as an anti personnel weapon can be replicated through other means that would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to mass produce and use in combat. As an intantry portable anti material weapon, we can again produce better, cheaper, lighter, etc. The heavy bolter, as a weapon, would be a very poor anti personnel weapon as the round itself is too big to carry in sufficient quantities by a person for the kill radius of a single round, while it isn't so great an anti material weapon that you'd lug something that heavy with munitions like that around by a man. I could equip a trooper with an rpg launcher and 5 rpgs and still have him combat effective with a fancy assault rifle plus underslung grenade launcher for less, have it weigh less, carry more ammo through diversity (more bullets for the gun, plus about a similar number of explosives for both the rpg and underslung as I could get with just the 25mm rounds), more mobility, and thus a more effective deployment system.

Could you 'carry' and 'use' a heavy bolter, yes I suppose. Would it actually be effective, no, not really in comparison. Could it be built? Absolutely. Would you need to or want to? Absolutely not as a man carried weapon. A 6in long by 1in in diameter shell is silly as a man portable anti personnel system for a 'machine gun'.

 Flinty wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on.

10 seconds on Google

http://hackedgadgets.com/2013/08/18/spin-stabilized-rocket/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_(rocket)

Also there are lots of militarised rockets with folding or pop-out fins for stabilisation. The 12g frag round apparently being one of them.

Bloody hell, so im back. Sorry dude but does that look like it would make a good bullet to you? i think not. They clearly tried rocket propelled rounds on a small scale and it didnt work. Small arms and rocket propelled bullets dont work very well. Until someone gives it a shot you cant say its possible, that becomes speculation.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

That's more or less what I was saying (unless this wasn't directed at me): 25mm is large and heavy, great on a vehicle, bad for infantry (even 7ft tall super soldiers) given that it's effects as an anti personnel weapon can be replicated through other means that would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to mass produce and use in combat. As an intantry portable anti material weapon, we can again produce better, cheaper, lighter, etc. The heavy bolter, as a weapon, would be a very poor anti personnel weapon as the round itself is too big to carry in sufficient quantities by a person for the kill radius of a single round, while it isn't so great an anti material weapon that you'd lug something that heavy with munitions like that around by a man. I could equip a trooper with an rpg launcher and 5 rpgs and still have him combat effective with a fancy assault rifle plus underslung grenade launcher for less, have it weigh less, carry more ammo through diversity (more bullets for the gun, plus about a similar number of explosives for both the rpg and underslung as I could get with just the 25mm rounds), more mobility, and thus a more effective deployment system.

Could you 'carry' and 'use' a heavy bolter, yes I suppose. Would it actually be effective, no, not really in comparison. Could it be built? Absolutely. Would you need to or want to? Absolutely not as a man carried weapon. A 6in long by 1in in diameter shell is silly as a man portable anti personnel system for a 'machine gun'.

The thing is, the lighter round of other weapons may not be effective against Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Barghesti, Tau Fire Warriors, Squiggoths, other Space Marines, Hrud, Yuuvath, or any one of the million other aliens that show up in the setting.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Flinty 573286 6442781 2b7in 82a7ec6de40781fd6ef338b41892.jpg wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on.

10 seconds on Google

http://hackedgadgets.com/2013/08/18/spin-stabilized-rocket/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_(rocket)

Also there are lots of militarised rockets with folding or pop-out fins for stabilisation. The 12g frag round apparently being one of them.

Bloody hell, so im back. Sorry dude but does that look like it would make a good bullet to you? i think not. They clearly tried rocket propelled rounds on a small scale and it didnt work. Small arms and rocket propelled bullets dont work very well. Until someone gives it a shot you cant say its possible, that becomes speculation.

You didn't specify bullets, you merely stated that you had never seen rockets without stabilising fins in a manner implying that such a foolish notion could never have been tried and made work at all.

Gyrojet ammo did absolutely "work" is just wasn't reliable hence it never really got anywhere, and probably why bolt-type rounds have never been seriously considered. Is it speculation that we could make such a thing now? Yes, of course, but given that the principles of all the fundamental parts of a bolter round are well understood there is no technical reason why we couldn't make such a round with modern materials. I'm not arguing for their effectiveness or efficiency, merely their possibility.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on.

10 seconds on Google

http://hackedgadgets.com/2013/08/18/spin-stabilized-rocket/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_(rocket)

Also there are lots of militarised rockets with folding or pop-out fins for stabilisation. The 12g frag round apparently being one of them.

Bloody hell, so im back. Sorry dude but does that look like it would make a good bullet to you? i think not. They clearly tried rocket propelled rounds on a small scale and it didnt work. Small arms and rocket propelled bullets dont work very well. Until someone gives it a shot you cant say its possible, that becomes speculation.

It's not a bullet. It's a 20mm missile that uses black powder to fire it out of the barrel before the booster fires (pretty much a miniature SABOT round come to think of it). Seriously man, do you even know how the basic bolter shells work? It's not a bullet. It's a 20mm fully automatic cannon firing rocket-propelled shells that ignite after being kicked out the barrel. This increases in size when you go from the normal .75 caliber bolter and up to the 1.00 caliber.

Are you just going to keep handwaving and paying zero attention to everything we say while you hold no information to support your (wrong) opinion? Because in that case I might as well just add you to my ignore list for you handwaving evidence with nothing supporting you for do so besides 'because reasons'. It's as much a 'bullet' as the .75 caliber rounds used in anti-tank rifles in WWII, or 20mm Anti-Aircraft cannons.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

That's more or less what I was saying (unless this wasn't directed at me): 25mm is large and heavy, great on a vehicle, bad for infantry (even 7ft tall super soldiers) given that it's effects as an anti personnel weapon can be replicated through other means that would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to mass produce and use in combat. As an intantry portable anti material weapon, we can again produce better, cheaper, lighter, etc. The heavy bolter, as a weapon, would be a very poor anti personnel weapon as the round itself is too big to carry in sufficient quantities by a person for the kill radius of a single round, while it isn't so great an anti material weapon that you'd lug something that heavy with munitions like that around by a man. I could equip a trooper with an rpg launcher and 5 rpgs and still have him combat effective with a fancy assault rifle plus underslung grenade launcher for less, have it weigh less, carry more ammo through diversity (more bullets for the gun, plus about a similar number of explosives for both the rpg and underslung as I could get with just the 25mm rounds), more mobility, and thus a more effective deployment system.

Could you 'carry' and 'use' a heavy bolter, yes I suppose. Would it actually be effective, no, not really in comparison. Could it be built? Absolutely. Would you need to or want to? Absolutely not as a man carried weapon. A 6in long by 1in in diameter shell is silly as a man portable anti personnel system for a 'machine gun'.

The thing is, the lighter round of other weapons may not be effective against Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Barghesti, Tau Fire Warriors, Squiggoths, other Space Marines, Hrud, Yuuvath, or any one of the million other aliens that show up in the setting.

You couldn't carry enough 25mm rounds to make the Heavy Bolter effective either (at least against people). 30 rounds, maybe, for the ammo carrier to load? That doesn't equate to 30 dead people. The GAO apparently stated something like 250,000 rounds per killed insurgent. So, even factoring out just random carp, you can't get down to 30 rounds kills 1 guy. Other stats I've seen suggest 20k rounds per kill in WW2 and 50k per kill in Vietnam. The gun with the 100 round, 200 round, 300 round hopper can put up comparable AP rounds. With 30 rounds you aren't suppressing anything for any length of time.

You'd run out of ammo too quickly to make the heavy bolter effective even if you could carry it around, the ammo is just to bulky to carry in sufficient quantity. This is why it could work as a vehicle weapon (storage space becomes more of a non issue) but not as a troop weapon. We know it doesn't take a 25mm shell to penetrate the armor of most of these people or even kill them, so no need to lug around a massively heavy weapon and very little ammo which would net little to no effect when we can design effectively better weapons with "inferior" technology.

The Heavy Bolter is around, because of 40k's 'bigger is better' mo, not because it would be effective.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

That's more or less what I was saying (unless this wasn't directed at me): 25mm is large and heavy, great on a vehicle, bad for infantry (even 7ft tall super soldiers) given that it's effects as an anti personnel weapon can be replicated through other means that would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to mass produce and use in combat. As an intantry portable anti material weapon, we can again produce better, cheaper, lighter, etc. The heavy bolter, as a weapon, would be a very poor anti personnel weapon as the round itself is too big to carry in sufficient quantities by a person for the kill radius of a single round, while it isn't so great an anti material weapon that you'd lug something that heavy with munitions like that around by a man. I could equip a trooper with an rpg launcher and 5 rpgs and still have him combat effective with a fancy assault rifle plus underslung grenade launcher for less, have it weigh less, carry more ammo through diversity (more bullets for the gun, plus about a similar number of explosives for both the rpg and underslung as I could get with just the 25mm rounds), more mobility, and thus a more effective deployment system.

Could you 'carry' and 'use' a heavy bolter, yes I suppose. Would it actually be effective, no, not really in comparison. Could it be built? Absolutely. Would you need to or want to? Absolutely not as a man carried weapon. A 6in long by 1in in diameter shell is silly as a man portable anti personnel system for a 'machine gun'.

The thing is, the lighter round of other weapons may not be effective against Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Barghesti, Tau Fire Warriors, Squiggoths, other Space Marines, Hrud, Yuuvath, or any one of the million other aliens that show up in the setting.

You couldn't carry enough 25mm rounds to make the Heavy Bolter effective either (at least against people). 30 rounds, maybe, for the ammo carrier to load? That doesn't equate to 30 dead people. The GAO apparently stated something like 250,000 rounds per killed insurgent. So, even factoring out just random carp, you can't get down to 30 rounds kills 1 guy. Other stats I've seen suggest 20k rounds per kill in WW2 and 50k per kill in Vietnam. The gun with the 100 round, 200 round, 300 round hopper can put up comparable AP rounds. With 30 rounds you aren't suppressing anything for any length of time.

You'd run out of ammo too quickly to make the heavy bolter effective even if you could carry it around, the ammo is just to bulky to carry in sufficient quantity. This is why it could work as a vehicle weapon (storage space becomes more of a non issue) but not as a troop weapon. We know it doesn't take a 25mm shell to penetrate the armor of most of these people or even kill them, so no need to lug around a massively heavy weapon and very little ammo which would net little to no effect when we can design effectively better weapons with "inferior" technology.

The Heavy Bolter is around, because of 40k's 'bigger is better' mo, not because it would be effective.

It works with Space Marines because they're able to carry a vehicle's worth of ammo. It just doesn't work with modern infantry or the guard for that manner as, for reasons you stated, they'll just burn through all their available ammo in short order. They're better off sticking to lascannons or a multilaser.

(Logistically, the lasgun is among the best weapons in all of Sci Fi for simply it's reliability.)

While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

It should also be noted that intelligent Astartes use their bolters as a semiautomatic rifle, not a full-auto machine gun. It's only the dumb ones that spray and pray.

If you read the 40k RP books, there are gun attachments that are like grav tripods. You just clip it on the gun and its like the gun floats and you barely have to lift it.

Sort of, but the suspensor devices are both rare and not-that-effective.

Our DH group had a gun-bunny Assassin that did not have the Encumbrance Limit to carry her MP Lascannon very far, even with a suspensor unit.

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

There is no way on even 40k terra there is 30 rounds in a bolter, no artwork has ever made a clip big enough to contain that many rounds. Those are like 10-15 round clips in the artwork.

Here is a 50 round 7.62mm clip as a reference.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/5212/907877400/wm_1483739.jpg

Note it in comparison to the gun. Now, a 25mm round is between 3 to 4 times the size.

Take a 30 round clip again and compare

http://www.southernoutdoorlife.com/mouseguns/sub2000/ak47.jpg

The clip for a bolter is shorter even than this, with at a scale of 3 to 1 means you are scrapping to even get 10 rounds into a bolter, 30 would be good for a Heavy Bolter to even approach. Yes they could carry more ammo, but not in massive quantities to make a HB worth it as a sustained fire weapon or squad support weapon, which is the tactical roll it is supposed to fill.

It's less a question of weight as it is bulk, the Marine isn't sufficiently 'big' enough to carry truly large quantities and noting in the art or modeling would back up anything different.

Marines are just lucky, their 6 shot revolver actually carries as many bullets as needed until it's dramatic to reload like something from a B movie Western.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

There is no way on even 40k terra there is 30 rounds in a bolter, no artwork has ever made a clip big enough to contain that many rounds. Those are like 10-15 round clips in the artwork.

Here is a 50 round 7.62mm clip as a reference.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/5212/907877400/wm_1483739.jpg

Note it in comparison to the gun. Now, a 25mm round is between 3 to 4 times the size.

Take a 30 round clip again and compare

http://www.southernoutdoorlife.com/mouseguns/sub2000/ak47.jpg

The clip for a bolter is shorter even than this, with at a scale of 3 to 1 means you are scrapping to even get 10 rounds into a bolter, 30 would be good for a Heavy Bolter to even approach. Yes they could carry more ammo, but not in massive quantities to make a HB worth it as a sustained fire weapon or squad support weapon, which is the tactical roll it is supposed to fill.

It's less a question of weight as it is bulk, the Marine isn't sufficiently 'big' enough to carry truly large quantities and noting in the art or modeling would back up anything different.

Marines are just lucky, their 6 shot revolver actually carries as many bullets as needed until it's dramatic to reload like something from a B movie Western.

Nah, it's obvious bolter magazines simply contain a portal into hammerspace containing an endless dimension of bolter shells and only discard magazines after the portal's busted from the heat of having so many rounds extracted.

I would think bolters would be extreamly good at what they are designed for, Fear and Carnage.

Bolters were designed during the Unification Wars and the Horus Heresy. Their whole point is to put the fear of Man in the rest of the universe. Stealth is not really what they are made for, so arguing about their effectiveness in a stealth mission is missing the point. They are supposed to be so loud when they fire and so devastating when a round connects, that you will think twice about shooting back at the. Even if it is inaccurate, the fact it has a meter blast radius instead of just plinking the ground would make a round a lot more deadly than a .556 round fired in recent times.

A bolter is illegal under the current tenets of the Geneva Convention. "Explosive projectiles weighing less than 400 grams eclaration of Saint Petersburg 1868" also "Weapons that cause superfluous pain or injury, more damage than is minimally required for incapacitate"

I would say it would be a pretty terrifying weapon to go against.

Alot of this has been said before, but I wanted to jump in.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

There is no way on even 40k terra there is 30 rounds in a bolter, no artwork has ever made a clip big enough to contain that many rounds. Those are like 10-15 round clips in the artwork.

Here is a 50 round 7.62mm clip as a reference.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/5212/907877400/wm_1483739.jpg

Note it in comparison to the gun. Now, a 25mm round is between 3 to 4 times the size.

Take a 30 round clip again and compare

http://www.southernoutdoorlife.com/mouseguns/sub2000/ak47.jpg

The clip for a bolter is shorter even than this, with at a scale of 3 to 1 means you are scrapping to even get 10 rounds into a bolter, 30 would be good for a Heavy Bolter to even approach. Yes they could carry more ammo, but not in massive quantities to make a HB worth it as a sustained fire weapon or squad support weapon, which is the tactical roll it is supposed to fill.

It's less a question of weight as it is bulk, the Marine isn't sufficiently 'big' enough to carry truly large quantities and noting in the art or modeling would back up anything different.

Marines are just lucky, their 6 shot revolver actually carries as many bullets as needed until it's dramatic to reload like something from a B movie Western.

DH lists the standard boltgun as packing 24, you are trying to apply real-world logic to 40K, and that is both a fallacy and the path to madness.


As far as Marines carrying extra ammo? They're encased in strength-enhancing ceramite. Slap some magnets to your magazines and then slap them onto your PA. You could probably fit ten mags on each leg, and another three on each forearm.

Vrakas wrote:

A bolter is illegal under the current tenets of the Geneva Convention. "Explosive projectiles weighing less than 400 grams eclaration of Saint Petersburg 1868" also "Weapons that cause superfluous pain or injury, more damage than is minimally required for incapacitate"

Interesting point, but there must be some way around it, or else all current grenade launchers and 20-25mm explosive rounds would be against it.

A hand grenade is not an "explosive projectile". The 40mm launched grenade is more than 400g in weight.

Those DPU and HEAP rounds fired by the autocannons and chainguns might also weigh more than 400g. These might also not be classed as "anti-personnel" in purpose.

I also remember reading that it is also illegal for a projectile to explode once penetration has been achieved. I cant seem to find the article, I am sure some one can back me up. But I did find this.

42. Explosive and penetrating weapons cause a variety of different physical
injuries. These may be grouped into injuries due to blast and injuries due to
penetration of the human body by one or more missiles, such as projectiles
or fragments. Penetrating weapons cause the latter type of injury, whereas
explosive weapons may cause either or both types. As is described in Chapter
IV, explosive weapons can be designed to maximize one or other of these two
casualty effects, in which event they may be classified either as blast weapons
or as fragmentation weapons

Basically you can have either a blast, or a penetrating weapon against a person, but not both. This is because it would cause unnecessary damage. Either the penetration should kill, or the blast. Having a bullet explode upon penetration and turning you into pink gibblets is frowned upon if that is the weapons intended purpose.

I think to have a research paper on the ethics and mechanics of a bolter would be pretty interesting.

 Psienesis wrote:
A hand grenade is not an "explosive projectile". The 40mm launched grenade is more than 400g in weight.

Those DPU and HEAP rounds fired by the autocannons and chainguns might also weigh more than 400g. These might also not be classed as "anti-personnel" in purpose.

This page indicated that all common US 40mm grenade rounds are about 200-300g.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/grenade/40mm_ammo.html

The page I saw quoting stats for the XM25 launcher also indicated the rounds were less than 400g, and the 20mm round for the old OICW must have been in the range of 100-200g, being that much smaller than a 25mm round. these latter weapons are definately classed for anti-personnel use, designed to take guys behind walls and in trenches.

Hmm, that seems awful light.... but, then, I haven't had a 203 in my hands in almost 20 years.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

There is no way on even 40k terra there is 30 rounds in a bolter, no artwork has ever made a clip big enough to contain that many rounds. Those are like 10-15 round clips in the artwork.

Here is a 50 round 7.62mm clip as a reference.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/5212/907877400/wm_1483739.jpg

Note it in comparison to the gun. Now, a 25mm round is between 3 to 4 times the size.

Take a 30 round clip again and compare

http://www.southernoutdoorlife.com/mouseguns/sub2000/ak47.jpg

The clip for a bolter is shorter even than this, with at a scale of 3 to 1 means you are scrapping to even get 10 rounds into a bolter, 30 would be good for a Heavy Bolter to even approach. Yes they could carry more ammo, but not in massive quantities to make a HB worth it as a sustained fire weapon or squad support weapon, which is the tactical roll it is supposed to fill.

It's less a question of weight as it is bulk, the Marine isn't sufficiently 'big' enough to carry truly large quantities and noting in the art or modeling would back up anything different.

Marines are just lucky, their 6 shot revolver actually carries as many bullets as needed until it's dramatic to reload like something from a B movie Western.

DH lists the standard boltgun as packing 24, you are trying to apply real-world logic to 40K, and that is both a fallacy and the path to madness.


As far as Marines carrying extra ammo? They're encased in strength-enhancing ceramite. Slap some magnets to your magazines and then slap them onto your PA. You could probably fit ten mags on each leg, and another three on each forearm.

Actually, I'm just asking 40k to use it's own visual showcasing of an item to have it apply to itself (I'm not trying to apply real world per say, just showcasing the physical size the clip would be to contain that many bullets). The artwork and models clearly depicts that it is not a 24 round mag.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1560134&setLocale=de_DE

Unless of course the Imperium has space fold technology incorporated into the bolter ala Transformers, you can actually count the shells on these things, 5 high in an expanded drum mag, with say maybe 3 to 4 across maximum based on rendering, in a drum mag.

Of course you can slap on extra mags, it's not the weight. A Marine is what, 7-8 ft tall? A 10-15 round clip would get close to the length of his forearm. Carrying a lot of these would just get in the way, reducing mobility.

Heh. Probably for the best

3lb unloaded and 3.5lb loaded are the stats apparently, or about 1.3kg and 1.5kg respectively.

I believe the magazines are double-column loaded, so if it looks like it only holds 8, it actually packs 16. I'm not sure how they accomplish this, and I'm sure that this was written to compensate for the visual appearance of the artwork... but so it goes.