The same reason it's not really used on combat rifles in the real world. Even though many modern rifles (heck, even carbines) feature the lug for a bayonet, the original intent/usefulness is gone. Modern bayonets are also more or less combat knives.
The bayonet was originally a stand-in for the slow disappearance of the common spearman in combat. Original bayonets were called "plug bayonets" and literally were jammed into the barrel of a firearm after you'd fired it, transforming you back into a spearman. The idea being you'd fire a couple of volleys and then finish the battle with a charge, where a spear was more useful because reloading your firearm was incredibly slow. For this reason muskets/rifles were long, and bayonets were likewise small swords.
This practice carried on into WW1 when rifles were still longer than current ones, and bayonets often were 18-24" long.
The entire point of a spear being that you were several feet from your threat and you'd poke him full of holes. After WW1 rifles started becoming shorter as ammunition and general firearms tech became better and better. Bayonets still existed and were in moderate use in WW2, but as time continued we saw less and less actual use. When mounted on a carbine (a shortened version of a normal rifle) you're almost to the point where you're better off just stabbing someone with the knife. Holding a knife is more maneuverable and you can wield it easier. It's the same reason we don't mount them on submachine guns, etc.
So a Space Marine with a boltgun (which is between the size of an assault rifle carbine, and a submachine gun) would have little to no use in running a bayonet vs. simply wielding the combat knife in his hand (something he'd have been trained to do anyway).
_________________
In short, as service firearms became shorter, we stopped using them as spears. The only advantage to a bayonet is your stand-off distance (the gap between you and your opponent). Once you close that gap you're better off wielding the knife in your hand.
PS: By the way, yes, many militaries still do a couple of arbitrary days of bayonet practice/drill, you still run around and stab punching bags with them, etc...but as a competent fighting tool it's less and less relied on.
I should put more on my guys. Still have a bunch in the bits box from the RTB01 days.
One of my favorite uses was when I noticed that the HB had a bayonet lug. Dev marines fight just as well as a tac, so he got a chian-bayonet to help with the carnage.
Spoiler:
There was also a more conventional bayonet on the sprue, but I’m not sure if I ever used any.
Galef wrote: Given the shock troop nature of Marines, I'm kinda surprised bolters don't come standard with bayonet's.
What are your opinions? Do you think they should have them? Do you think they'd look cool?
Any thoughts on why they don't?
-
Because Magazin fed weaponry doesn't really need a Bajonett to be effective.
Infact Bajonetts make guns annoying to use.
Especially if you use faster firing models.
Bayonets are an easy bit to get stuck on stuff and break, happens with guardsmen a lot.
Also, with the blocky profile of a bolter, bayonets don't really look quite as cool, they look really awkward to actually fight with. I would however like to see more combat knives and the like.
In short, as service firearms became shorter, we stopped using them as spears. The only advantage to a bayonet is your stand-off distance (the gap between you and your opponent). Once you close that gap you're better off wielding the knife in your hand.
PS: By the way, yes, many militaries still do a couple of arbitrary days of bayonet practice/drill, you still run around and stab punching bags with them, etc...but as a competent fighting tool it's less and less relied on.
Everything in this post is true, but...
In 2011, a corporal in the British Army led a bayonet charge against Taliban insurgents attacking his position. And in 2004, his same unit (in Iraq this time) fixed bayonets and engaged in close-quarters combat with insurgents, killing some 27. Note that in both cases, the British personnel were armed with bullpup L85 rifles, which offer only a few more inches of reach than just holding the knife in your hand.
The bayonet is not a spear. That was the original intent, and its usage in Napoleonic conflicts, but the modern usage- as far as bayonets are still used, from mid-WW1 onwards- is a lethal deterrent against physical manipulation of your weapon. A bayonet not only makes attempting to grab the muzzle inadvisable, but it allows the wielder to respond immediately.
Because in reality, you are never wielding a knife in your off hand while engaging with a firearm held one-handed. Either you have a bayonet attached to your rifle, or you have no knife ready at all. You just don't see them much in the real world because compactness takes priority in room-clearing, but bayonets do see occasional use, primarily in CQB/MOUT.
In a setting like 40K, where melee combat is not only common but sometimes preferred, a bayonet makes perfect sense, and we see them in common use among the Guard. I don't see why Space Marines wouldn't have them too- a Marine-sized bayonet with a Marine's strength behind it would make for one heck of a can-opener.
Edit: Bayonets were also recognized for their psychological impact before WW1. Even if the gun it's attached to is far more lethal, the visibility of a gleaming silver blade on the end of it is a strong deterrent against attempting to engage in melee. On a very visceral level, they're scary to go up against.
Yep, I'm aware of their use in that particular incident, but there's no finer example of "an exception to the rule". Ask any person who's a capable knife wielder if they'd want it on your rifle or in your hand, and they'd say hand (and I don't mean in one hand wielding your rifle like a space marine, I mean slinging the rifle and getting to work with the knife).
That's why I stated "less and less" and it's not something you see in common usage, hardly at all.
The bayonet is not a spear. That was the original intent, and its usage in Napoleonic conflicts, but the modern usage- as far as bayonets are still used, from mid-WW1 onwards- is a lethal deterrent against physical manipulation of your weapon. A bayonet not only makes attempting to grab the muzzle inadvisable, but it allows the wielder to respond immediately.
So you are saying that Shas'O Me'el Wau'Nera here in the spoiler would have fared much better with a bayonet on his pulse blaster?
A Space Marines doesn't really need a bayonet. Hell Marines proably don't really need a knife, they're super strong individuals with a increased bone desnity, whose fists are shod in heavy metal.
A Space Marine walking around with his fists is effectively carrying a pair of Maces.
BrianDavion wrote: A Space Marines doesn't really need a bayonet. Hell Marines proably don't really need a knife, they're super strong individuals with a increased bone desnity, whose fists are shod in heavy metal.
A Space Marine walking around with his fists is effectively carrying a pair of Maces.
But when up against ork skulls or tyranid carapaces, sometimes a little extra is needed.
And a good knife is as much a tool as it is a weapon.
(I fully agree that against an un-augmented human anything more than a marine’s fists is overkill. Lots of nastier stuff out and about though...)
Elbows wrote: Yep, I'm aware of their use in that particular incident, but there's no finer example of "an exception to the rule". Ask any person who's a capable knife wielder if they'd want it on your rifle or in your hand, and they'd say hand (and I don't mean in one hand wielding your rifle like a space marine, I mean slinging the rifle and getting to work with the knife).
No, they will say they want it on rifle if you're fighting in the open. That's why bayonets exist at all - because they give you reach as opposed to just giving your gunners knives. Guy with a knife not only needs to walk through zone where he can't respond to guy with bayonet, bayonets are used two-handed, meaning your typical kevlar vest (or chainmail, or whatever) which would be knife-proof will offer much less resistance. Good thrust to the head, neck, or heart will kill you, and there is very little guy with a knife can do besides counting on the opponent making some sort of error.
Also, HH models have tons of bayonets, both normal and chain variants, so the premise of the thread is kind of flawed. That square thing under barrel is supposed to be a bayonet lug, and every single bolter, with maybe a tiny handful of exceptions, has it. Why plastic marines don't have them? Dunno, doctrine change, the fact that modern marines nuts enough to want one usually use full blown melee weapons instead, or the need to conserve space on sprue. You pick, I guess.
Gotta disagree. That range advantage on a modern rifle counts for nothing, what does count is wielding the knife effectively and proficiently. I've been stabbed to death in training plenty of times by people who know what they're doing. You avoid one jab and you're back in your zone, where the bayonet then becomes a complete liability (unable to wield it against someone who is close to you).
I understand your train of thought, but the reality is that's not what a knife-fighter would want.
Ya know, all this debate about real world practical (or rather impractical) use of bayonets is good and all, but 40k has rarely ever been about realism.
And as scary as a Marine is supposed to be, having a sharp pointy bit sticking out of thier bolter should make them scarier.
I guess with all the ridiculousness in 40k, I am just surprised bayonets and chain bayonets haven't been more of a thing. I mean, the new Imperial Fist Primaris model has BRASS KNUCKLES on his power fist for crying out loud!
Anyway, I'll be adding some bayonets to at least some of my Chaos Marines and maybe some Primaris.
In the real world, the bayonet is (generally speaking) a more effective melee weapon that the sword. It is longer than a sword, so it can strike from further away and it has more surface area with which to block incoming attacks. Since a bayonet is longer, heavier, and easier to grasp with two hands it can also produce more striking power than a sword can. It is also easier to use.
If people are running around with swords in the Imperium they should sure as hell run around with bayonets.
In trench warfare in WW1 the entrenching tool was preferred over the bayonet. The entrenching tool could be swung faster than the bayonet could be rethrusted. If you miss with your thrust your dead before you can rethrust. If you hit your dead, as your bayonet gets invariably stuck, and your targets mate kills you.
Saber wrote: In the real world, the bayonet is (generally speaking) a more effective melee weapon that the sword. It is longer than a sword, so it can strike from further away and it has more surface area with which to block incoming attacks. Since a bayonet is longer, heavier, and easier to grasp with two hands it can also produce more striking power than a sword can. It is also easier to use.
If people are running around with swords in the Imperium they should sure as hell run around with bayonets.
In fairness though the only people running around with swords are A: Dedicated Melee infantry units. B: Officers.
Dedicated Melee units are going to have dedicated Melee weapons (which Bayonets are not) and officers tradtionally have swords, swords being a symbol of rank.
Galef wrote: Given the shock troop nature of Marines, I'm kinda surprised bolters don't come standard with bayonet's.
What are your opinions? Do you think they should have them? Do you think they'd look cool?
Any thoughts on why they don't?
-
Because bayonet are not flashy enough, from practical point of view chainswords should be totally useless weapon, but from cool miniature prospective
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: Gotta disagree. That range advantage on a modern rifle counts for nothing, what does count is wielding the knife effectively and proficiently. I've been stabbed to death in training plenty of times by people who know what they're doing. You avoid one jab and you're back in your zone, where the bayonet then becomes a complete liability (unable to wield it against someone who is close to you).
I understand your train of thought, but the reality is that's not what a knife-fighter would want.
My father was trained to use bayonet and the training was absurdly hard. Trained soldier can use all the gun as a weapon and i doubt soldiers now are now trained like that.
I've got at least one squad of RT marines armed with chainsaw bayonets.
I imagine they aren't included on the sprue any more for the same reason that ammo packs and grenades aren't - they're extra bits to glue on and paint that most people ignored.
Still, wouldn't mind seeing Rievers wielding bolt weapons with blades/chainsaw bayonets on them. Also would be a nice option for intercessors.
Bayonets might be the perfect way to boost reivers, if they could basicly get their carbine with a combat knife it might actually make them have a place in some lists.
Elbows wrote: Yep, I'm aware of their use in that particular incident, but there's no finer example of "an exception to the rule". Ask any person who's a capable knife wielder if they'd want it on your rifle or in your hand, and they'd say hand (and I don't mean in one hand wielding your rifle like a space marine, I mean slinging the rifle and getting to work with the knife).
That's why I stated "less and less" and it's not something you see in common usage, hardly at all.
Since when does war consist of one on one duels on flat mats? And I say this as someone who goes to a sports school. Just because the american army doctrine doesn't assume mass bayonet charges are thing anymore, doesn't mean they are not done. WWII had them, Korea had them, they happened in vietnam and afganistan. there is also such small moments in war time, like being auto of ammo or wanting to preserve ammo, it is better to jam someone with something sharp, then go double taping everything that moves. Specially when dealing with civilians. The Russian military doctrin for infantry and mechanised infantry, still has bayonet charges and mass bayonet use as something not just tought, but used. Same with the China Army.
In trench warfare in WW1 the entrenching tool was preferred over the bayonet. The entrenching tool could be swung faster than the bayonet could be rethrusted. If you miss with your thrust your dead before you can rethrust. If you hit your dead, as your bayonet gets invariably stuck, and your targets mate kills you.
And on the eastern front, where trench warfare didn't leave troops stuck in same space for years, were used a lot. Even cavalery was used a lot, and not just then, durning the civil war and durning the 1919-20 war too. The defence of places like legionowo or radzymin saw bayonet charges and counter charges going in their teens every day between 12 and 17 of july.
BrianDavion wrote: Bayonets might be the perfect way to boost reivers, if they could basicly get their carbine with a combat knife it might actually make them have a place in some lists.
That's not bad. Not just for Reivers, but select other units as well. Give certain bolter variants a melee profile that gives them +1 attack. (But then make Chainsword -1AP or +1S to make them less pointless)
I just added bayonets to a few of my CSMs and that look alright. Probably wouldn't look great for Loyal Marines sine the bolter is kinda stubby, but Primaris Bolt Rifles otoh....
Sterling191 wrote: Probably because at present GW has no stomach for potentially getting sued for ripping off Lancers.
Would LOVE to see Lancers with Bolter rounds in them. You could just throw away the Chainsword completely on most models that carry any kind of rifle. You have a Bolter/Bolt Rifle and a Chainsword in a single weapon. That wold be SO FREAKIN COOL! Plus, just the sheer satisfaction you get from cutting a Locust in half with a Lancer... nothing else like it in any video game series. Taking that to the tabletop would be great!
bayonets were proven to poorly affect accuracy of your weapon and they instantly stopped being used. Around the same time side weapons became much more reliable and available. Why try to stab someone when you can hit them with a .45 which leaves a much bigger hole and does it a lot faster.
Realistically for a marine. They cause so much damage with their fist they don't have much need for a small blade. A sword or a hammer though...that is a different story.
Xenomancers wrote: bayonets were proven to poorly affect accuracy of your weapon and they instantly stopped being used. Around the same time side weapons became much more reliable and available. Why try to stab someone when you can hit them with a .45 which leaves a much bigger hole and does it a lot faster.
Yeah...no. Bayonets are standard issue for practically every military on the planet. They're rarely used in combat and more often than not used as a multitool for various domestic (and shenanigan related) purposes, but they're absolutely still part of the kit, and their use is till taught.
Their implications for accuracy go all the way back to the days where one couldnt fire a firearm with a fixed bayonet (cause the way said bayonet was attached was by literally shoving it down the barrel), but that didnt for a moment preclude their use.
I was once told by a drill instructor during bayonet training that if you EVER heard "fix bayonets" on the modern battlefield... you're screwed. You're already dead.
Same reason that during unarmed combative training they said: if you ever have to deploy hand-to-hand techniques in the field... the best way to win the fight is to hold out for your buddy to come up with a round and put it in the bad guy's head.
Like we still learned bayonet and unarmed skills... but really... in modern combat (not urban, totally different realm there) there is no need for those weapons when you have a rifle, a combat load of ammunition, and your squadmates all geared to match.
I think even in 40K, close combat would more be an obsession than a means to an end. It even plays out on the tabletop... we all fancy making close combat armies... but always practically deploy ranged ones, maybe with a touch of melee in it to scratch that itch and live the fantasy.
Xenomancers wrote: bayonets were proven to poorly affect accuracy of your weapon and they instantly stopped being used. Around the same time side weapons became much more reliable and available. Why try to stab someone when you can hit them with a .45 which leaves a much bigger hole and does it a lot faster.
Yeah...no. Bayonets are standard issue for practically every military on the planet. They're rarely used in combat and more often than not used as a multitool for various domestic (and shenanigan related) purposes, but they're absolutely still part of the kit, and their use is till taught.
Their implications for accuracy go all the way back to the days where one couldnt fire a firearm with a fixed bayonet (cause the way said bayonet was attached was by literally shoving it down the barrel), but that didnt for a moment preclude their use.
Yeah...No...They are for show. A knife is heavy...so is a loaded weapon. Making your weapon heavier is idiotic. Literally no one would ever use one in combat. Any training done with them is also a complete waste of military resources and doubt anyone actually does that anymore.
Yeah...No...They are for show. A knife is heavy...so is a loaded weapon. Making your weapon heavier is idiotic. Literally no one would ever use one in combat. Any training done with them is also a complete waste of military resources and doubt anyone actually does that anymore.
You would be exquisitely wrong on every single point.
Tygre wrote:In trench warfare in WW1 the entrenching tool was preferred over the bayonet. The entrenching tool could be swung faster than the bayonet could be rethrusted. If you miss with your thrust your dead before you can rethrust. If you hit your dead, as your bayonet gets invariably stuck, and your targets mate kills you.
Also in WWII, by the Red Army.
Purifying Tempest wrote:
I think even in 40K, close combat would more be an obsession than a means to an end. It even plays out on the tabletop... we all fancy making close combat armies... but always practically deploy ranged ones, maybe with a touch of melee in it to scratch that itch and live the fantasy.
Yeah...No...They are for show. A knife is heavy...so is a loaded weapon. Making your weapon heavier is idiotic. Literally no one would ever use one in combat. Any training done with them is also a complete waste of military resources and doubt anyone actually does that anymore.
You would be exquisitely wrong on every single point.
You live in a literal state of delusion. No one uses bayonets. Please look above with people telling stories of WW1 were even when bayonets were common...They were not used because a shovel is literally a better weapon. You must be a Napoleonic wargamer or something. Bayonets have had practically 0 use in combat since ww1. Regardless of whether they trained people how to use them people DID not use them.
Space Marines are highly trained and armored super humans which to me seems like it would be better to give them actual melee weapons than trying to turn their bolter into a spear weapon via a bayonet. Bolt Pistol + Chainsword makes sense in 40k because they can slice and dice with their sword while still rapidly engaging targets with the pistol (see Space Marine the video game). A Space Marine with a bayonet bolter is just stabbing mostly and its not well suited for rapid engagement of chopping through loads of enemies. A Nid or Ork stabbed with a bayonet probably wouldn't care if its stuck in them and would start clobbering the marine where as something more brutal like a chainsword is (in the lore anyways) able to rip them to shreds quickly. Even the combat knife is able to inflict multiple wounds in rapid succession where as doing the same with a bayonet isn't as practical, especially against durable threats that need an extreme amount of punishment to bring down. A chainsaw bayonet would fit 40k nicely but I'm sure that would stir up a lot of drama about stealing Gears of War's iconic thing.
Excommunicatus wrote: The problem with absolute statements is that it only requires a single instance to disprove them.
A single instance like either of the ones mentioned earlier.
No it doesn't - only if you are just trying to be argumentative.
All true statements about bayonets.
They reduce accuracy of the rifle whilst making it heavier.
Soldiers prefered secondary CC weapons over a bayonet.
As a result they stopped being used.
A statement that boynetes aren't used is accurate. A statement that they are used is not. No one cares about 1 instance if they are a million instances of the opposite.
On the original topic, the previous CSM and terminator kits came with bayonet options. Some look good some look wonky. I never saw very many used either way. There’s also less need for a bayonet when you can fire your rifle with one hand and stab effectively with the other.
Also anyone advocating for the use of the bayonet in modern warfare where most rifles are down to carbine size and the battlefield is moving towards more and more urban engagements is clearly an infantry zealot. The time to deliberately train on its use is not worth the effect in combat. Yes some brits pulled it off on some insurgents, but those guys will run from their own shadow. Trying that against any trained opponent would have les to a very different outcome.
You live in a literal state of delusion. No one uses bayonets. Please look above with people telling stories of WW1 were even when bayonets were common...They were not used because a shovel is literally a better weapon. You must be a Napoleonic wargamer or something. Bayonets have had practically 0 use in combat since ww1. Regardless of whether they trained people how to use them people DID not use them.
"Common use" and "use" are two fundamentally different things, and you know that.
Xenomancers wrote: No it doesn't - only if you are just trying to be argumentative.
Coming from the person slinging around absolute statements that you know are wrong, this is delicious.
All true statements about bayonets.
They reduce accuracy of the rifle whilst making it heavier.
Soldiers prefered secondary CC weapons over a bayonet.
As a result they stopped being used.
I guess you should tell the last three hundred plus years of armed warfare that theyve been doing it wrong.
Excommunicatus wrote: The problem with absolute statements is that it only requires a single instance to disprove them.
A single instance like either of the ones mentioned earlier.
No it doesn't - only if you are just trying to be argumentative.
All true statements about bayonets. They reduce accuracy of the rifle whilst making it heavier. Soldiers prefered secondary CC weapons over a bayonet. As a result they stopped being used.
A statement that boynetes aren't used is accurate. A statement that they are used is not. No one cares about 1 instance if they are a million instances of the opposite.
Coolbeans.
There's two instances of them being used recently in this thread, but of course your crazily hyperbolic statements about "no one" using them in combat still stand. I'm just being "argumentative" by pointing out that you put forward a really, really, really weak argument that was proven incorrect before you even wrote it.
Space Marines having a knife makes sense, as it's a useful tool. Space Marines in close combat makes sense, because they're brutes, nigh impervious to fire, and sometimes fight against hordes of lesser opponents who do not have any guns. They are often expected to be on long campaigns, potentially where resupply is difficult, so CC as a way of conserving ammunition also makes sense.
If they can affix the knife to their Bolter, just in case. . . sure, why not? Little extra reach, and it might be better in confined spaces where swinging an arm is more difficult than a simple forward stab, plus it means they still have their Bolter at the ready.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: CSM still have Bayonets, Plague Marines at least. Terminators recently lost them, but they always have a CC arm so it's probably not as necessary
Iirc, Chaos Terminators used to get an extra attack because of the bayonet+spikes.
Xenomancers wrote: Around the same time side weapons became much more reliable and available. Why try to stab someone when you can hit them with a .45 which leaves a much bigger hole and does it a lot faster.
No country routinely issues sidearms, .45 or not, to regular infantry. Handguns are overwhelmingly issued to officers and specialists. If you are armed with a rifle, and aren't some flavor of special forces, you aren't getting a sidearm.
Sidearms are expensive, don't serve double duty as a utility tool, and cannot be kept at the ready while using your primary weapon. They do not provide any deterrent to manipulation of your primary weapon in MOUT, and lack the psychological impact of a visible blade. Bayonets don't jam, they don't require maintenance, they don't run out of ammo, and they have minimal logistical burden. They're not directly comparable, either in purpose or allocation.
Xenomancers wrote: No it doesn't - only if you are just trying to be argumentative.
All true statements about bayonets.
They reduce accuracy of the rifle whilst making it heavier.
Soldiers prefered secondary CC weapons over a bayonet.
As a result they stopped being used.
A statement that boynetes aren't used is accurate. A statement that they are used is not. No one cares about 1 instance if they are a million instances of the opposite.
This is nonsense. Bayonets do not reduce accuracy, but they do change barrel harmonics, which can affect point of impact. The Soviets zeroed their weapons in WW2 with bayonets deployed to counter this. The Mosin-Nagant rifle was expected to be carried with bayonet always fixed.
Nobody on a modern battlefield carries dedicated close combat weapons. Historically, even in post-WW1 conflicts, bayonets were the primary form of melee weapon in actual use. Yes, other weapons were also used in trench warfare in WW1. That didn't stop US Marines from fixing Enfield sword bayonets on their M1897 shotguns in both world wars, or the Japanese employing bayonet charges in WW2, or the issue (and use) of bayonets on Garands in Normandy, all the way up to M7 bayonets used in combat in Vietnam. No M16-armed GI was carrying a shovel as a 'secondary CC weapon' in Vietnam.
And they are still used. I gave two examples on the last page- one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq- of honest-to-god bayonet charges. The Chinese (in Korea) and North Vietnamese both made extensive use of bayonet charges as a military tactic. Bayonets were used in both Rhodesia and the Balkans. Like they are certainly not commonly used, but that's simply a side effect of close combat being extremely rare in the real world. If there were some crazy reason for hand-to-hand combat to return in real life, we would absolutely see a resurgence of the bayonet as a practical fighting arm. In 40K it's perfectly fitting.
Where does your knowledge of military TTP come from?
Bayonet charges have been conducted as recently as the fighting in Afghanistan, so regardless of what small percentage of soldiers actually end up sticking someone with the pointy end, the few that are called upon to do so are probably glad that they have one and were instructed in using it, which probably wholly justifies the almost trivial expense of making your knife and rifle to be able to be stuck together into a pointy stick. Appreciably, you can still use your rifle while fitted with a bayonet, but you can't use your rifle while wielding a knife, hatchet, or entrenching tool [and can more easily go back to using your gun once the guy you stabbed with the pointy end has been stabbed], and the rifle is a far more important weapon than any of the potential melee weapons you could have outside of the immediate moment when somebody has to be stabbed, so I can see it definitely making sense to continue to use bayonets.
In addition, close assault by infantry is a very effective way to take a position, if not the most effective way. Beyond the elevated probability of encountering a situation that might call for stabbing someone during a infantry close assault, the bayonet inspires confidence and aggression in attacking soldiers so that they're more willing to get up there and drive the enemy out in the face of danger. That's why bayonet training focuses of doing things like screaming and being angry, to create a pavlovian association between the bayonet and aggression.
As for bolters not having bayonets: the bolters do have bayonet lugs, so presumably Marines and Sisters can fix bayonets like Guardsmen if they want. On the other hand, they're highly conditioned and brainwashed shock troops who are sufficiently fear inducing in the first place that they don't have to stick a pointy piece of metal on their gun to feel brave or make the enemy question their chances.
I have a whole squad of Tacs converted with box mags and bayonets as a close assault specialist look. Rule of cool. Oddly, I dislike them on lasguns, go figure.
Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?
Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.
In addition, close assault by infantry is a very effective way to take a position, if not the most effective way. Beyond the elevated probability of encountering a situation that might call for stabbing someone during a infantry close assault, the bayonet inspires confidence and aggression in attacking soldiers so that they're more willing to get up there and drive the enemy out in the face of danger. That's why bayonet training focuses of doing things like screaming and being angry, to create a pavlovian association between the bayonet and aggression.
Errmmmmm hahahahahhajahahajahha.
.
First, cqc infantry combat is only effective if you have troops actually trained for that. Most rifleman are not. Otoh if you talk grenadiers or other dedicated assault troops it might be effective with support and Intel advantage.
Secondly. If you are close enough for shanking you are close enough for secondary weapons,which will not have an issue with something like a Flak vest. Alternativly feldspaten is just as effective, as is using the Butt of a rifle and or the helmet.
Thirdly, if the Intel and support are lacking your efficient method of claiming a position has turned into a deathtrap.
However caveat beeing that terrain is average.
If you sit in a jungle or City or dense forrest cqc becomes more feasable but still a high risk of getting to intimately know the firerate of automatic weaponry.
Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?
Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.
Maybe someone who knows more about actual firearms can comment, but in my experience with paintball guns (limited) more weight meant more accuracy (from stability) not less. If it was so much weight you couldn't operate it effectively, that'd be different - but that's not the weight level we're talking about.
So does anyone have a good source on weight's impact on accuracy for firearms?
From Personal experimenting in rs, it depends, the stgw 90gets noticably more barrel heavy. F.e
And that feths atleast for me, my accuracy on the range.
Granted i am just what is a rifleman equivalent but it is noticable.
In addition, close assault by infantry is a very effective way to take a position, if not the most effective way. Beyond the elevated probability of encountering a situation that might call for stabbing someone during a infantry close assault, the bayonet inspires confidence and aggression in attacking soldiers so that they're more willing to get up there and drive the enemy out in the face of danger. That's why bayonet training focuses of doing things like screaming and being angry, to create a pavlovian association between the bayonet and aggression.
Errmmmmm hahahahahhajahahajahha.
.
First, cqc infantry combat is only effective if you have troops actually trained for that. Most rifleman are not. Otoh if you talk grenadiers or other dedicated assault troops it might be effective with support and Intel advantage.
Secondly. If you are close enough for shanking you are close enough for secondary weapons,which will not have an issue with something like a Flak vest. Alternativly feldspaten is just as effective, as is using the Butt of a rifle and or the helmet.
Thirdly, if the Intel and support are lacking your efficient method of claiming a position has turned into a deathtrap.
However caveat beeing that terrain is average.
If you sit in a jungle or City or dense forrest cqc becomes more feasable but still a high risk of getting to intimately know the firerate of automatic weaponry.
I'm not saying CQC is ideal for that situation, but a couple nitpicks:
-Do most riflemen carry a secondary weapon? Upthread they suggest otherwise
-Are Flak vests now better vs knives (/bayonettes) than firearms? Historically, "bullet proof" vests would do very little versus a cutting/stabbing implement.
-Do you really think the butt of a rifle (or, much less, a helmet) would make nearly as ideal a close combat weapon as an improvised club as a designed-for-purpose bladed spear?
Back on topic; I think a bayonette might have use for a Marine, but it's a lot less important for a guy who can spit acid and punch through walls.
Although, to be fair, the Torygraph is little more than thinly-veiled agitprop.
There are contemporaneous accounts in other media, as well as several other first hand accounts of action available from far more reliable outlets. The MoD statements are also available with a few moments googling.
Not Online!!! wrote: From Personal experimenting in rs, it depends, the stgw 90gets noticably more barrel heavy. F.e
And that feths atleast for me, my accuracy on the range.
Granted i am just what is a rifleman equivalent but it is noticable.
So no, bayonettes don't make a weapon less accurate. The firer may have a harder time hitting if they're not used to the bayonette, though.
I also found some references to some competitors add additional weight to their weapons to improve stability, but that didn't seem authoritative or widely-accepted.
Xenomancers wrote: Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.
The 10lb rifle. Weight, particularly muzzle weight, combats muzzle climb in repeated fire and makes for a more stable shooting platform. This is why competition pistols often have counterweights added to the end, and this is part of why the early AR-10 was a military failure. Also, FWIW, an M9 bayonet weighs under a pound.
While I've never gutted someone with a bayonet, I have qualified Marksman on a US Army range while serving in a deployed civilian role, and subsequently achieved Expert through the Appleseed program with a 12lb H-BAR FAL variant.
We have enough real-world references not to need thought experiments and speculation here. If you don't like the 2011 example in Afghanistan, feel free to look up the 2004 MOUT operation in Iraq. Or the last US bayonet charge during the Korean war. Or the grisly details of jungle fighting in Vietnam. I don't know where you got the idea that nobody's used bayonets in combat post-WW1, let alone that sidearms have taken over their role, but it's just not true.
The modern day plate carrier has ceramic plates inserted into the vest. You would need two or three bayonet strikes to actually get through that section.
Again, there were bayonet charges against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Said insurgents will also run anytime they hear a propeller or anytime you hang an illumination round nearby. A bayonet charge against a peer fighting unit will end badly.
I absolutely would not recommend the bayonet for CQC. You'll end up making your rifle that much more unweildly. Look at photos and videos from Fallujah or Mosul. How many bayonets do you see on the professional soldiers?
It could work for space marines but anything could work as a weapon for them
The bayonet is not a spear. That was the original intent, and its usage in Napoleonic conflicts, but the modern usage- as far as bayonets are still used, from mid-WW1 onwards- is a lethal deterrent against physical manipulation of your weapon. A bayonet not only makes attempting to grab the muzzle inadvisable, but it allows the wielder to respond immediately.
So you are saying that Shas'O Me'el Wau'Nera here in the spoiler would have fared much better with a bayonet on his pulse blaster?
Spoiler:
Is it wrong that I find that image funny?
Its as if the Reiver is saying to the Tau "NO! Bad Tau! No gun for you!"
Although, to be fair, the Torygraph is little more than thinly-veiled agitprop.
There are contemporaneous accounts in other media, as well as several other first hand accounts of action available from far more reliable outlets. The MoD statements are also available with a few moments googling.
So you are saying that Shas'O Me'el Wau'Nera here in the spoiler would have fared much better with a bayonet on his pulse blaster?
Spoiler:
Is it wrong that I find that image funny?
Its as if the Reiver is saying to the Tau "NO! Bad Tau! No gun for you!"
No, that image is quite funny. Although I imagine the Reiver slowly walking up as the Fire Warrior is shooting him and just moving the gun aside as an annoyance. Maybe just uttering "Stop it, that's enough!"
I'm just going to note yes Bayonets aren't used often, although they are still trained (and the military does train soldiers in techniques that likely won't have an application on the modern battlefield, every sailor is trained to sail a sailing ship, for example somethings are just taught out of tradtion)
but here's the thing.. Bayonets are used a HELL of a lot more then SWORDS ARE. In the military an officer will still have a sword as part of his dress uniform, but they don't carry them into battle.
But, we have tons of sword equipped guys in 40k. Bayonets are a lot more realistic then guys with jet packs jumping around into eneimies with a pistol and sword.
(Supressors are proably how a real military would employ jet pack troops. highly mobile fire teams providing pin point fire support where needed)
How much leverage would a marine have swinging a foot long combat blade off the end of a bolter? A bolter is shaped like a shoebox, imagine swinging a knife duct taped to the end of a box. Now picture a genetically modified power armor equipped marine stabbing down on something with a handheld blade, I have to imagine he'd get more leverage going in by hand and taking advantage of his body weight. Also the bolter isn't long enough to really spear something is it?
Am I the only person a little perplexed by people trying to apply specifically last-few-decades 21st century military protocol and logic to 40k? Like, even more specifically to the limited number combat zones that conflicts have been fought in on literally one planet?
Like, to give a recent example, remember how every general for YEARS in ww1 just couldn't conceive of a way to get over trench warfare? Like, none of their contemporary strategies had any way of countering 'man hiding in hole with machine gun and artillery support'. 40k, beyond being both fictional, and deliberately very silly, is set 38 millenia ahead of us. Military strategy today will be outpaced by something inevitably.
'oooh, a little knife makes my M16 too heavy' is utterly irrelevant.
In 40k, all kinds of things have altered how combat works. People have personal sheild generators, psyker sheilding, forcefeilds and magic immunity because the emperor wills it so. People use hammers and stuff to kill each other because it's more effective than puny projectile weapons. In the vast, roiling insanity of combat, I'm sure there've been countless instances where a space marine has needed to use a bayonet. And additionally, that heresy armor deathguard with a bayonet looks cool as all hell, and thus is 100% justified.
posermcbogus wrote: Am I the only person a little perplexed by people trying to apply specifically last-few-decades 21st century military protocol and logic to 40k?
No. You're 100% right. Most of this thread is completely off topic and needs a major cleanup. Aren't there actual historical warfare forums to discuss stuff like this?
People have personal sheild generators, psyker sheilding, forcefeilds and magic immunity because the emperor wills it so. People use hammers and stuff to kill each other because it's more effective than puny projectile weapons. In the vast, roiling insanity of combat, I'm sure there've been countless instances where a space marine has needed to use a bayonet. And additionally, that heresy armor deathguard with a bayonet looks cool as all hell, and thus is 100% justified.
While I try to model each of my marines having some kind of knife since it's a universally useful tool that everyone should carry, I'd assume that your average marine doesn't need one to be deadly.
They are super strong, can spit acid and probably club anything short of a larger ork to death with their bolter. A knife on the end of said weapon probably won't make much of difference.
It's reasonable for the guard to have bayonets. I mean they do like them trenches and lines of bodies so it's basically a spear wall. Outrange that Ork Choppa by a little bit but still die under the mass of the green tide or acid from a pierced guant. Space Marines however are deployed in small squads and aren't going to be forming a battle line. The compact nature of a bolter isn't the most suitable platform for a bayonet either. Although now that I think about it a axe head on the end of a storm bolter would look cool, unwieldy as hell but cool.
I just want to make a point about bayonetts on miniatures: They break easily. I glued a bayonett fixed knife to one of my 100ish marines and I still regret it. He is my single most repaired miniature. The nightmare of having that issue with all of them would be too much...
So I'm glad it's not standard for 40k marines. Also I used to own cadians and those bayonetts would break alot, good riddance.
Not Online!!! wrote: From Personal experimenting in rs, it depends, the stgw 90gets noticably more barrel heavy. F.e
And that feths atleast for me, my accuracy on the range.
Granted i am just what is a rifleman equivalent but it is noticable.
So no, bayonettes don't make a weapon less accurate. The firer may have a harder time hitting if they're not used to the bayonette, though.
I also found some references to some competitors add additional weight to their weapons to improve stability, but that didn't seem authoritative or widely-accepted.
Ehh disagree, the issue is it depends on the gun and what the combat range is.
F.e. A füsel (my job, also the fodder job of the army ) is to fight at a range around 300 m
That is a range where the Bajonett becomes a detriment over long or short period.
That beeing said the gun also has an influence on this, the stgw is normally well balanced, however it becomes barrel heavy with an attached Bajonett. Not to mention that the barrell is a relative vulnerable part so I'd never use a Bajonett on my stgw 90 attached due to fear of getting a banana
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitdakka wrote: I just want to make a point about bayonetts on miniatures: They break easily. I glued a bayonett fixed knife to one of my 100ish marines and I still regret it. He is my single most repaired miniature. The nightmare of having that issue with all of them would be too much...
So I'm glad it's not standard for 40k marines. Also I used to own cadians and those bayonetts would break alot, good riddance.
Shudders in Cadian Bajonett.
Funny enough the marine ones atleast on pm are sturdy as hell
I'm just puzzled that the models were not designed for their combat knife (which several kits come with) to be glued to the end of the Bolter as a bayonet. Even Intercessors have that little loop thing right under the muzzle just forward of the gripe. Looks like an intentional place to but a bayonet.
While I get that regular bolters don't quite look long enough for the traditional bayonet mounting, a Bolt Rifle is, well a RIFLE. So I think they would look great with bayonets. Gonna give mine some.
Galef wrote: I'm just puzzled that the models were not designed for their combat knife (which several kits come with) to be glued to the end of the Bolter as a bayonet.
Even Intercessors have that little loop thing right under the muzzle just forward of the gripe. Looks like an intentional place to but a bayonet.
While I get that regular bolters don't quite look long enough for the traditional bayonet mounting, a Bolt Rifle is, well a RIFLE. So I think they would look great with bayonets. Gonna give mine some.
-
All comes down to sprue space. There's a lot happening in the intercessor kit, and I completely understand prioritizing the things they did over a cosmetic bit.
Galef wrote: I'm just puzzled that the models were not designed for their combat knife (which several kits come with) to be glued to the end of the Bolter as a bayonet.
Even Intercessors have that little loop thing right under the muzzle just forward of the gripe. Looks like an intentional place to but a bayonet.
While I get that regular bolters don't quite look long enough for the traditional bayonet mounting, a Bolt Rifle is, well a RIFLE. So I think they would look great with bayonets. Gonna give mine some.
-
All comes down to sprue space. There's a lot happening in the intercessor kit, and I completely understand prioritizing the things they did over a cosmetic bit.
Well, I'm more talking about the Tactical Marine and older Chaos Marine kits, which DID come with knives, but didn't seem to be well designed to be glued to the bolter. You could do it, but there's a bit of chopping involved (which to be fair, was standard practice just to get the bolters into the hands of the Marines as the handles were modeled on)
Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?
Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.
Maybe someone who knows more about actual firearms can comment, but in my experience with paintball guns (limited) more weight meant more accuracy (from stability) not less. If it was so much weight you couldn't operate it effectively, that'd be different - but that's not the weight level we're talking about.
So does anyone have a good source on weight's impact on accuracy for firearms?
I know a ton about firearms - I have quite an arsenal and I shoot a lot. Don't be foolish. This bayonet debate is already over. Anyone claiming that adding additional weight to your rifle to add a useless knife on the end of it just has some real bad ideas about warfare and how it works.
Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?
Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.
Maybe someone who knows more about actual firearms can comment, but in my experience with paintball guns (limited) more weight meant more accuracy (from stability) not less. If it was so much weight you couldn't operate it effectively, that'd be different - but that's not the weight level we're talking about.
So does anyone have a good source on weight's impact on accuracy for firearms?
I know a ton about firearms - I have quite an arsenal and I shoot a lot. Don't be foolish. This bayonet debate is already over. Anyone claiming that adding additional weight to your rifle to add a useless knife on the end of it just has some real bad ideas about warfare and how it works.
I'm going to have to trust Wikipedia, USMC, Quora, Reddit, current and former military members, competitive shooters, and more over someone who apparently owns a lot of guns. I own a lot of Warhammer paints, but that doesn't mean I have any skill or knowhow about painting models.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm just going to note yes Bayonets aren't used often, although they are still trained (and the military does train soldiers in techniques that likely won't have an application on the modern battlefield, every sailor is trained to sail a sailing ship, for example somethings are just taught out of tradtion)
but here's the thing.. Bayonets are used a HELL of a lot more then SWORDS ARE. In the military an officer will still have a sword as part of his dress uniform, but they don't carry them into battle.
But, we have tons of sword equipped guys in 40k. Bayonets are a lot more realistic then guys with jet packs jumping around into eneimies with a pistol and sword.
(Supressors are proably how a real military would employ jet pack troops. highly mobile fire teams providing pin point fire support where needed)
More than a combat blade? I highly doubt it. A hand held blade has a real application of being able to take down an enemy silently without expenditure of ammunition. I am certain knives are used a lot more than bayonets.
Although, to be fair, the Torygraph is little more than thinly-veiled agitprop.
Read the article - this wasn't a bayonet charge. This was a unit that got ambushed and employed the correct tactics to take away an ambush position (by using a grenade) turns out the dudes inside the building ran away...likely around the same time their other position was destroyed by a rocket.
Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?
Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.
Maybe someone who knows more about actual firearms can comment, but in my experience with paintball guns (limited) more weight meant more accuracy (from stability) not less. If it was so much weight you couldn't operate it effectively, that'd be different - but that's not the weight level we're talking about.
So does anyone have a good source on weight's impact on accuracy for firearms?
I know a ton about firearms - I have quite an arsenal and I shoot a lot. Don't be foolish. This bayonet debate is already over. Anyone claiming that adding additional weight to your rifle to add a useless knife on the end of it just has some real bad ideas about warfare and how it works.
I'm going to have to trust Wikipedia, USMC, Quora, Reddit, current and former military members, competitive shooters, and more over someone who apparently owns a lot of guns. I own a lot of Warhammer paints, but that doesn't mean I have any skill or knowhow about painting models.
Yes - literally all those sources will tell you bayonets are a bad idea and aren't even used lol.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm just going to note yes Bayonets aren't used often, although they are still trained (and the military does train soldiers in techniques that likely won't have an application on the modern battlefield, every sailor is trained to sail a sailing ship, for example somethings are just taught out of tradtion)
but here's the thing.. Bayonets are used a HELL of a lot more then SWORDS ARE. In the military an officer will still have a sword as part of his dress uniform, but they don't carry them into battle.
But, we have tons of sword equipped guys in 40k. Bayonets are a lot more realistic then guys with jet packs jumping around into eneimies with a pistol and sword.
(Supressors are proably how a real military would employ jet pack troops. highly mobile fire teams providing pin point fire support where needed)
More than a combat blade? I highly doubt it. A hand held blade has a real application of being able to take down an enemy silently without expenditure of ammunition. I am certain knives are used a lot more than bayonets.
Although, to be fair, the Torygraph is little more than thinly-veiled agitprop.
Read the article - this wasn't a bayonet charge. This was a unit that got ambushed and employed the correct tactics to take away an ambush position (by using a grenade) turns out the dudes inside the building ran away...likely around the same time their other position was destroyed by a rocket.
Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?
Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.
Maybe someone who knows more about actual firearms can comment, but in my experience with paintball guns (limited) more weight meant more accuracy (from stability) not less. If it was so much weight you couldn't operate it effectively, that'd be different - but that's not the weight level we're talking about.
So does anyone have a good source on weight's impact on accuracy for firearms?
I know a ton about firearms - I have quite an arsenal and I shoot a lot. Don't be foolish. This bayonet debate is already over. Anyone claiming that adding additional weight to your rifle to add a useless knife on the end of it just has some real bad ideas about warfare and how it works.
I'm going to have to trust Wikipedia, USMC, Quora, Reddit, current and former military members, competitive shooters, and more over someone who apparently owns a lot of guns. I own a lot of Warhammer paints, but that doesn't mean I have any skill or knowhow about painting models.
Yes - literally all those sources will tell you bayonets are a bad idea and aren't even used lol
None of this matters and is quite off the topic that I started. We cannot begin to speculate how giant super humans clad in tank armour firing mini-rocket launchers would be affected but a knife at the end of said launcher.
My original intention for this thread was to ask why anyone thought GW didn't design bayonets on Marine weapons more often. I mean, they put brass knuckles on the powerfist of the new Imperial Fist Primaris character after all.
Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?
Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.
Maybe someone who knows more about actual firearms can comment, but in my experience with paintball guns (limited) more weight meant more accuracy (from stability) not less. If it was so much weight you couldn't operate it effectively, that'd be different - but that's not the weight level we're talking about.
So does anyone have a good source on weight's impact on accuracy for firearms?
I know a ton about firearms - I have quite an arsenal and I shoot a lot. Don't be foolish. This bayonet debate is already over. Anyone claiming that adding additional weight to your rifle to add a useless knife on the end of it just has some real bad ideas about warfare and how it works.
I always assumed the boltgun itself was so comically bulky because it had been designed as a bludgeon; if your gun is already a melee weapon you don't necessarily need to make it more of a melee weapon. There's also the question of how much attaching a bayonet to the end of something so short actually helps. I know Primaris bolt rifles are longer but even then compare the proportional length of a boltgun to the proportional length of a musket back when bayonets were meaningful weapons of war, it doesn't look like adding a bayonet would actually extend the Marine's reach a whole lot.
Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?
Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.
Maybe someone who knows more about actual firearms can comment, but in my experience with paintball guns (limited) more weight meant more accuracy (from stability) not less. If it was so much weight you couldn't operate it effectively, that'd be different - but that's not the weight level we're talking about.
So does anyone have a good source on weight's impact on accuracy for firearms?
I know a ton about firearms - I have quite an arsenal and I shoot a lot. Don't be foolish. This bayonet debate is already over. Anyone claiming that adding additional weight to your rifle to add a useless knife on the end of it just has some real bad ideas about warfare and how it works.
I'm going to have to trust Wikipedia, USMC, Quora, Reddit, current and former military members, competitive shooters, and more over someone who apparently owns a lot of guns. I own a lot of Warhammer paints, but that doesn't mean I have any skill or knowhow about painting models.
Yes - literally all those sources will tell you bayonets are a bad idea and aren't even used lol.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet "Despite its limitations, many modern assault rifles (including bullpup designs) retain a bayonet lug and the bayonet is still issued by many armies."
USMC: Issues Bayonets
Quora: https://www.quora.com/Do-bayonets-decrease-the-accuracy-of-rifles Reddit, posters in this thread, vets in forums: Weight of bayonets don't impact accuracy of rifle
Competitive shooters: Often add weight to their weapons for increased accuracy
No-one is saying bayonets are frequently used as a primary weapon in modern warfare. We're just calling bull on the "Bayonets got dropped entirely immediately when we learned it hurt accuracy". Both the idea that bayonets actually were dropped, or that bayonets necessarily hurt accuracy. We've produced plenty of sources. If you wish to continue the debate, please either introduce a novel argument, provide a novel refutation to the counterarguments, or produce an authoritative source to such an effect. "I play with guns" does not make an authoritative source, even when compared to Wikipedia or Reddit.
So to steer this train wreck back on course: Can anyone identify the purpose of the loop under the Bolt Rifle's muzzle? Sure looks like a bayonet lug to me.
So why aren't there any Primaris models with bayonets? Surely at least one of the many LTs would have one modeled?
Galef wrote: So to steer this train wreck back on course: Can anyone identify the purpose of the loop under the Bolt Rifle's muzzle? Sure looks like a bayonet lug to me.
So why aren't there any Primaris models with bayonets? Surely at least one of the many LTs would have one modeled?
-
for PM there are chainsword and normal bajoneets. seems that the doctrine of the unit depends on chapter/ legion and so does use.
I think bayonets look really appropriate on guardsmen because they're trying to keeping things like Nids or demons at more than arm's reach - even just the effect of having a bayonet might improve morale for dug in humans in a brutal scifi world.
I still don't think a SM would be more effective stabbing his bolter over using a big combat knife, a marine would probably have greater efficiency in H2H by using a knife and his offhand. That said it certainly looks cool, especially on something like IW or 30k WE.
Galef wrote: So to steer this train wreck back on course: Can anyone identify the purpose of the loop under the Bolt Rifle's muzzle? Sure looks like a bayonet lug to me.
So why aren't there any Primaris models with bayonets? Surely at least one of the many LTs would have one modeled?
-
The loop I think is for a strap. Check with the rifles that have them.
Galef wrote: So to steer this train wreck back on course: Can anyone identify the purpose of the loop under the Bolt Rifle's muzzle? Sure looks like a bayonet lug to me.
So why aren't there any Primaris models with bayonets? Surely at least one of the many LTs would have one modeled?
-
The loop I think is for a strap. Check with the rifles that have them.
Yup. As evidenced by the Dark Imperium LT, a number of parts on the Intercessor sprue, the Ravenguard upgrade sprue Bolter, the Primaris Captain Bolter, etc., the loop is for a strap.
I believe bayonets do not appear on Bolters (at least the plastic variety) often because they tend to break off. The metal variety of Marine does not have this problem, but still do not feature bayonets, possibly because of mould space limitations (three marines with bayonets take up the space of five without).
) is to fight at a range around 300 m
