Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It breaks matter apart at the molecular level AFAIK.

I actualy think people are missing a bit with bolt rounds, they are described as "mass-reactive" not as explosive. now as i understand the only forms of mass reaction are fusion, fission or a chemical reaction. it isnt the later since that would be an explosive. i would say it wouldnt be fusion since that would make the round the equivalent of a plasma gun or melta so I would actualy go for very small controlled fission reaction. this would basicaly be like an explosive round untill it came to heavily armoured targets which it would be more effective against ......

the other explaination is that it is the explosive trigger mechanism (the thing that sets the bolt off) which reacts to foreign mass.

but i like the idea of firing around mini-mini nukes better.

just thought i should put the "mass reaction" thing out there.

'Mass Reactive' is one of GW's meaningless sciency sounding phrases, I'm afraid.

Mass reactive could mean any or all of the things you mentioned - it could also describe chemical explosives (the chemicals have mass and it's p-retty reactive, since it explodes), shape-isomer decay or, hell, matter-antimatter reactions (again, mass and reacting).

Sorry. Until there's any evidence otherwise, chemical explosives would seem the most parsimonious explanation.

Unless proven otherwise, never assume a sci-fi writer could tell a hadron from a hole in the ground.

most probably, I would go for my second option to be honest. having a chemical detonator in the warhead (that reacts to impact with a mass) is probably more plausable.

that and a nuclear reaction (even a very small one) releases a large amount of radiation.

Bolts have a 'mass reactive detonator cap' Given that 'mass reactive' could mean almost anything, we're going to have to rely on the 'detonator' bit. Bolts do explode.

Mass reactive does have a real world meaning that easily applies into the realm of the 40k bolter.

Basically how this applies. You start with a bolter round. This round will consist of a caseing, a propellant, a penetrator, a mass reactive detonator cap, an energetic. When the round is fired out of a boltgun, the propellant is ignited, the caseing expands to seal the breach, and the developing gas preasure accelerates the remainging componants out of the barrel. The remaining componants continoue downrange until they hit an object of sufficient density to set off the mass reactive detonator cap which ignites the energetic, the energetic then imparts additional interia into the penetrator, giving it more velocity and penitration.




Automatically Appended Next Post:


This is one of the concepts for what a bolter round could be, just scaled down roughly 100 times. This round utilizes a shaped charge to acceive penitration which is triggered by an impact sensor.



This is a soon-to-be retired M900 Sabot Round, this is the basics of what I think a bolter round actually is only scalled down 100 times.

If you combine the two rounds shown above you would get a 40k bolter round as described, it would have a solid penetrator round like the M900, but it would have a secondary shaped charge, like the M830 behind it to give it additional penitration.

And it is fairly consistantly stated and demonstrated in diagrams that they have an explosive charge in the bolt.

Rip I think your missing the point of my post. The point of which was that a bolter round technically does contain and explosive, however that explosive is a mass reactive charge, it is used to further accelerate the penetrator and is not used to cause fragmentation.

In a world where armor is so previlant, fragmentation has nothing to do with armor penitration, a fragment of a projectile is less likely to pieirce armor then is the initial projectile. Look at the AP difference between a Bolter and a Stuber or a Bolter and Shotta. The Stuber fires a standard solid projectile, it works like a standard gas operated gun we have today, the bolter uses a mass reactive charge to make the round hit harder.

I always assumed the "Mass Reactive" detonator meant "Mass Sensitive" - so it doesn't explode on impact, or after going through a sheet of thin metal, but after lodging in something big - with suitable mass.

DapperAnarchist wrote:I always assumed the "Mass Reactive" detonator meant "Mass Sensitive" - so it doesn't explode on impact, or after going through a sheet of thin metal, but after lodging in something big - with suitable mass.

Something like that, the way you could look at it is that its a charge that is triggered once it hits something of sufficiant hardness, but instead of just exploding it propells the round through its target. It would be entirely possible for a mass reactive round to pass through something soft, like an unarmored body without detinating.

Remember, you might know what you're talking about, but GW probably doesn't.

"mass reactive" in 40k fluff does not refer to Fusion nor Fission, it is very simplified in meaning that the fuse... well reacts to mass. Bolt Weapons have a contact fuse that triggers when the tip of the bolt impacts with a target, that fuse then triggers an explosion(of the conventional variety) .10-.100 seconds afterwords, placing the explosion inside the target for maximum effect.

Melissia wrote:Remember, you might know what you're talking about, but GW probably doesn't.

I think my idea holds water though, it fits in the the overall scheme they have for projectile weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:"mass reactive" in 40k fluff does not refer to Fusion nor Fission, it is very simplified in meaning that the fuse... well reacts to mass. Bolt Weapons have a contact fuse that triggers when the tip of the bolt impacts with a target, that fuse then triggers an explosion(of the conventional variety) .10-.100 seconds afterwords, placing the explosion inside the target for maximum effect.

.10 and .100 are the same thing. If you were to have a fuse with that long of a delay the round would more then likely pass through the target before it exploded. For a timed fuse like your talking about to work the way your think then it would have to be in the .001 to .0001 second range, possibly higher if 40k rounds travel considerably faster then current rounds.

I'm reading Angels of Darkness atm and in that humans are described as being shot by a bolter and then exploding from the inside immediately afterward: That implies a small explosion surely? If they are literally ripped apart from the inside?

I seem to remember reading that a .50 sniper rifle round can cause damage by passing near you.

Because of the shockwave it makes as it moves by, it causes vascular damage.

If this is so, the same could be said for bolter rounds.

Henners91 wrote:I'm reading Angels of Darkness atm and in that humans are described as being shot by a bolter and then exploding from the inside immediately afterward: That implies a small explosion surely? If they are literally ripped apart from the inside?

If you shoot a watermellon with a gun, the bullet doesnt just make a neat hole through the mellon, it will make it explode. The same thing applies to a person.

skrulnik wrote:I seem to remember reading that a .50 sniper rifle round can cause damage by passing near you.

Because of the shockwave it makes as it moves by, it causes vascular damage.

If this is so, the same could be said for bolter rounds.

That's just an unproven myth

Melissia wrote:

skrulnik wrote:I seem to remember reading that a .50 sniper rifle round can cause damage by passing near you.

Because of the shockwave it makes as it moves by, it causes vascular damage.

If this is so, the same could be said for bolter rounds.

That's just an unproven myth

One that they didn't dis-prove on Mythbusters.

They tried to show if it could break glass with just the shockwave, but they kept hitting the rig they had set up, so it was not clear.

Funny that they had to use a rig to pull the trigger also.

I do know for a fact that when firing a bolt action 50cal rifle, if your are on either side of the barrel there is a good chance you will perforate your ear drums.

However I would guess that once the bullet is in flight its shockwave lacks the energy to cause serious damage to a person. If it wasnt so late in the day I would take a ride down to one of the ranges at work and ask one of the armorers, but they are probably all gone for the day.

Well, there's a video of man losing his earmuffs to a .50 BMG round on ricochet - he fires, it hits something in what was supposed to be the backstop, comes back, blows one of the ears of the earmuffs off - though of course that could be the shockwave or the bullet...

I'd think a bolt would be slower though. Not subsonic, but slower. However, it does spit out hot gasses behind it... Does anyone know about the effects of a near-miss with a gyrojet round?

From my 3rd editon rule book

Seriously a gyrojet round...someone googled rocket propelled bullets today....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ribon, in response to what you posted. If it has a rifled barrel it can't be considered a rocket.

Gahh. GW makes my head hurt. When they wrote this they must have had a pile of wepaons terms and picked them at random...

Rifling would make the bolt spin there for there would be no need for gyro stablizing, keep it cheep, keep it simple

Catyrpelius: And why can't it be both a bullet and a rocket, using a multi-stage round?

Ribon Fox wrote:Rifling would make the bolt spin there for there would be no need for gyro stablizing, keep it cheep, keep it simple

You can't spin stabilize a rocket, for actually reasons that I wont bore people with an explination of. Rockets need to be fin or flute stabilized...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Catyrpelius: And why can't it be both a bullet and a rocket, using a multi-stage round?

There is no reason it couldnt be, but all that would really do is extend the range.

And the accuracy at long range as well.

It's just a bullet that explodes! Why is this getting so complicated?

Melissia wrote:You disagree, but I have a fluff citation to prove my point Frag grenades have an area effect in Dark Heresy. Bolters do not. If bolters use a fragmentation effect then it is an immensely weak one which is lesser than a frag grenade given to Guardsmen as standard equipment.

Yes, but that's most likely because the shrapnel is mostly soaked up by the object the round has embedded itself into. (IE: A man called Steve, or perhaps Donald.)

As a result of this, it's very unpleasant for Steve (or Donald) as his insides are now full of shrapnel, but the outside world surely knows nothing about it!

Melissia wrote:And the accuracy at long range as well.

Only if its controlled in flight. Crossing over from a bullet to a rocket is very complicated when something is a dumb projectile.

You guys are overestimating the explosive force again. Catachans plant bolts into the ground for booby-traps. When stepped on the explosion, which does not benefit from impact velocity anymore, is only enough to take off a few toes. Hence, the Catachan nick-name "toe-poppers".