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.

Melissia wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Of course they're gyrojets

So because something has ONE similarity and is glaringly different in every other way, it's the same?

Ronin-Sage wrote:It in a logical world, it would indeed be tricky to have bolters being low-recoil AND effective even at point-blank range but frankly, 40k writers, GW, and whoever can pretty much ignore logic, the laws of physics, etc. when it comes to fluff.

Which basically amounts to "I don't like the idea of boltguns having lots of recoil so I'm just gonna say science fiction!, throw my hands up, and hope you accept it".

We have official recent sources saying it has high recoil.

It's like that grey knights bathing in the blood of Sisters to keep themselves pure thing. A lot of people don't like it, but it IS canon.

I don't see how this invalidates my point. Nothing in 40k needs to make sense, period, so trying to apply real-world laws to certain things which just don't make sense just doesn't work. I'm not arguing whether or not it's 'canon'(I have no opinion on that), but what I am saying is that high-recoil bolters makes no sense.

Aside from pulling something out of thin air, why is that?

To me, them having little recoil makes absolutely no sense.

Okay, I'mma stop you right there. Have in mind that sometimes things have drawback because the manufacturers couldn't see how to take them out. Have you considered that Boltguns have recoil for the same reason all current firearms do?

EDITED: Once again, beaten by Melissia xD

Melissia wrote:Aside from pulling something out of thin air, why is that?

To me, them having little recoil makes absolutely no sense.

Are you asking why Bolters make no sense?

If so, the recoil on the weapon would make it hard for a human to shoot. While an Astartes could shoot one no problem, the weapons high recoil is impractical. If logic were applied in 40K, the Astartes would use a a high powered rifle with less recoil and greater armor penetration. Firing a bolter, if we go by the round most commonly referenced in lore, is like firing a Mk. 19 on full auto. While very pro-core and macho to the max, the common sense is a tad bit lacking.

Not sure if that is what you were talking about though...

Belexar wrote:Okay, I'mma stop you right there. Have in mind that sometimes things have drawback because the manufacturers couldn't see how to take them out. Have you considered that Boltguns have recoil for the same reason all current firearms do?

I don't think I had to add anything else to reply.

BeefCakeSoup wrote:If so, the recoil on the weapon would make it hard for a human to shoot. While an Astartes could shoot one no problem, the weapons high recoil is impractical.

Not really. Space Marines wear power armor and have ludicrous amounts of strength to begin with.

It's like complaining that a tank cannon has too much recoil for a human to wield. Well yeah. It's not really designed for a human to wield. It's designed for a TANK.

Keep in mind, this is only Astartes boltguns. Human boltguns are built for humans to wield. They are marginally less effective, but still very much overkill for anything that's T3 or equivalent (but quite useful against hordes of Orks as long as the ammo holds out).

What she said! Space marines are perfecty capable of shooting a gun with a high kick, with al the boosts their armor gives them. Also, not every single weapon in the SM arsenal has to be fawless. Everything has certain drawbacks. you can't expect a gun not to have recoil just becaue it would be better that way.

Melissia wrote:

BeefCakeSoup wrote:If so, the recoil on the weapon would make it hard for a human to shoot. While an Astartes could shoot one no problem, the weapons high recoil is impractical.

Not really. Space Marines wear power armor and have ludicrous amounts of strength to begin with.

It's like complaining that a tank cannon has too much recoil for a human to wield. Well yeah. It's not really designed for a human to wield. It's designed for a TANK.

Keep in mind, this is only Astartes boltguns. Human boltguns are built for humans to wield. They are marginally less effective, but still very much overkill for anything that's T3 or equivalent (but quite useful against hordes of Orks as long as the ammo holds out).

Ok, I see what you are saying now.

As for my statement about the practicality of the Bolter...


In TT the weapon makes perfect sense to me, but in a real setting the weapon seems a terrible choice for a Super Human to use. If anything, a superior weapon would be a more powerful variant of a Lasgun. If Lascannons can fire stronger shots with great AP, a smaller version would feasibly fit a Space Marine just fine. Sort of like a Rail gun being scaled down to a rail rifle.

Maybe the reason for that is similar to the reason why Railguns can't be scaed down to Railrifles. They just can't be made that small if you want to actauly kill something. Bolters are a much more practical option in terms of mobility, even if it's inferior in power.

You mean hellguns? They're still not as explosively powerful as bolt weapons., and they consume much more energy than lasguns do.

Remember, the higher the power setting on a las weapon, the more exponentially higher its power requirements are. Guard lascannons fire once and then reload a new battery in. Even with a backpack power pack, Astartes only get six shots out of their lascannons.

Besides, the boltgun allows for a wide variety of special ammunition, which las weapons don't have.

Belexar wrote:Maybe the reason for that is similar to the reason why Railguns can't be scaed down to Railrifles. They just can't be made that small if you want to actauly kill something. Bolters are a much more practical option in terms of mobility, even if it's inferior in power.

Actually Rail Rifles are scaled down to rail rifles and they do work quite well. In TT a path finder team can be kitted out with them as heavy weapons that punch through power armor with a pretty strong shot. This is the small frame of a Tau though, an Astartes could most likely carry a heavier rifle with no problem. Using TT and Lore in tandem shows that a Bolter is certainly good at what it does, I am merely stating that a variant of a more practical weapon would be a more logical choice with real world stuff factored in like carrying extra ammo etc.

Yeah, that too. It's like comparing a SMG with a Carbine.

EDIT: Damnit, BCS beat me this time :(

Now, Rail Rifles have to be big for their magnetic field to give the proyectile the power to actuay do soe damage. If they made it the size of a oltgun, they would be worthless for anything but point blank, and even then a Bolter pistol would do better.

BeefCakeSoup wrote:

Belexar wrote:Maybe the reason for that is similar to the reason why Railguns can't be scaed down to Railrifles. They just can't be made that small if you want to actauly kill something. Bolters are a much more practical option in terms of mobility, even if it's inferior in power.

Actually Rail Rifles are scaled down to rail rifles and they do work quite well. In TT a path finder team can be kitted out with them as heavy weapons that punch through power armor with a pretty strong shot. This is the small frame of a Tau though, an Astartes could most likely carry a heavier rifle with no problem. Using TT and Lore in tandem shows that a Bolter is certainly good at what it does, I am merely stating that a variant of a more practical weapon would be a more logical choice with real world stuff factored in like carrying extra ammo etc.

It would, if Marines were front line soldiers, which they are not. Ammo expenditure is not an important consideration for a company of Marines, compared to a few regiments of Guard.

Melissia wrote:

BeefCakeSoup wrote:

Belexar wrote:Maybe the reason for that is similar to the reason why Railguns can't be scaed down to Railrifles. They just can't be made that small if you want to actauly kill something. Bolters are a much more practical option in terms of mobility, even if it's inferior in power.

Actually Rail Rifles are scaled down to rail rifles and they do work quite well. In TT a path finder team can be kitted out with them as heavy weapons that punch through power armor with a pretty strong shot. This is the small frame of a Tau though, an Astartes could most likely carry a heavier rifle with no problem. Using TT and Lore in tandem shows that a Bolter is certainly good at what it does, I am merely stating that a variant of a more practical weapon would be a more logical choice with real world stuff factored in like carrying extra ammo etc.

It would, if Marines were front line soldiers, which they are not. Ammo expenditure is not an important consideration for a company of Marines, compared to a few regiments of Guard.

I see what you're what getting at. Yeah, in 40K the bolter is a great weapon given the capacity in which it is used. I was talking more about the use of real world logic and how it applied to a bolter. A bolter in 40K is great, in real world settings, not so much. It's bulky, has a terrible looking sight, the rounds would be flinging all over the place in windy enviroments, the mags look like spares would be a nightmare to keep handy etc.

As for the original question, a larger weapon would have less recoil if it was designed properly internally to deal with the recoil. Judging the bolter from purely an external view, I'd say it would have massive recoil simply due to it's somewhat compact size given the size of the round it is firing.

The problem is that the Bolter is not used in this world. It's used in the 40K unievrse. In the 41st century. By guys with power armors and a virtually unlimited reserve of ammo. My keyboard keeps skipping keys. It's annoying. Yes.

I still don't get how this is confusing everyone!

Yes, they have quite high recoil, they must do. As the shot is fired they are for all instants and purposes an automatic grenade launcher. The rounds are large and they are highly effective at point blank range, ergo the recoil is not negligible.

Then, after they're in flight and the recoil has already happened the rounds activate their jet and fly like an RPG. It's a two stage shot that makes it very effective at short range and long range too (but also stupidly complex and powerful compared to modern day weaponry).

It probably works like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulH7Kr-UQEU

crossed with this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8_NF7cY4uY&feature=related

The first gun has a lot of recoil, hence the stand. The second rpg, little recoil (watch the guy sway slightly as it goes off). But seeing as the rocket isn't activated untl mid-flight and the speed of the bolt starts to drop, there's no worry about it!

How there are casings flying everywhere I can't imagine.

Ronin-Sage wrote:

It in a logical world, it would indeed be tricky to have bolters being low-recoil AND effective even at point-blank range but frankly, 40k writers, GW, and whoever can pretty much ignore logic, the laws of physics, etc. when it comes to fluff.

Like regularly ignoring the square/cube law in almost everything. Of course, it being science fiction, it's to be expected.

I have always imagine that they are making 2 types of bolter. For ordinary humans ( Guardsman, Commisars, SoB ) and a stronger ones for Astartes and Inquisitors.

Melissia wrote:

Kasrkai wrote:Agreed. Not to mention the small initial charge would make negligible recoil, even for a normal human, somewhat like an RPG on auto, which isn't to bad from my experience. Must be including the rate of fire.

There's a HUGE initial charge, not a small one. If it had a small initial charge you could block it by putting a hand up against the exit to the barrel. As it is, the weapon is very powerful at close range AND long range, so having a weak initial charge doesn't make sense.

And it isn't just a grenade. It's closer to a HEAT round with a secondary rocket propulsion. Penetrate THEN explode.

The original gyrojet rocket carbine which the Bolter is based on could be stopped with a hand or even a sheet of thick paper across the barrel tip (by that point it had a very low velocity. But the Bolter is a two-stage projectile. A conventional charge in the shell launches it out at high speed whereupon a secondary solid stage projectile begins to burn, further speeding the mass-reactive shell.

Astartes Bolters are meant to be many times the size and caliber of the few human ones, with faster rates of fire. They're supposedly so big that they can barely be lifted.

The Gyroget pistol, rifle and carbine.

I always assumed they worked and looked like Normal bullets, only the back end of the acctual bullet having a rocket strapped onto it, and like 7x bigger..

As for the differences between Humans and Astartes, going with a 3 round burst here, I thought Humans would pace the shots. Giving themselves a chance to recover between shots, But still killing the target. Marines on the other hand, would give a small rapid "pppphht" if you will, which (I picture it to be like the sound a A-10 Thunderbolt/Warthog makes), the combined shots would pulp a humans arm, and pulp the target.

I know DoW has its own sounds and animations for bolters, but this is what I picture my marines doing.

Internal Details
1- A solid-fuel rocket propellant base
2- An outer casing containing conventional charge
3- Gyrostabilizer
4- Mass-reactive fuse. Has a split-second timer to delay detonation upon impact until after the shot penetrates the target.
5- Hardened diamantine penetrating tip. This allows for the bolt to penetrate most armour before detonation.
6- Main Charge
7- Depleted deuterium core. This is a very dense material, adding weight and thus momentum to the round when in flight. This aids in the bolt's penetration of the victim.



Copied straight from 40k wiki. Just shows the internal workings of the shell for those who were interested.

Bolters are big weapons for human standars, but the bolt neutralises part of the recoil AFAIK.
Moreover, there are bolters in imperial guardsmen's squad, fired like any other gun. May it be that the extract you red was refered toa HEAVY bolter? If it was, I would agree.

Boltguns are supposed to be loud, large have a ridiculos amount of raw power becuse space marines are as much a threat physiclly as phycologicly so giving them lots of recoil makes sence.

The sad thing is that ultra-dense deuterium is theoretically possible... but it's something you get from fusion, a very complex process. Deuterium is just hydrogen with a neutron (most hydrogen atoms not having a neutron). Hydrogen, including Deuterium, is the least dense element in the periodic table in its natural form.

IronChaos wrote:Bolters are big weapons for human standars, but the bolt neutralises part of the recoil AFAIK.
Moreover, there are bolters in imperial guardsmen's squad, fired like any other gun. May it be that the extract you red was refered toa HEAVY bolter? If it was, I would agree.

No. It was for ASTARTES Boltguns.

As I noted several times in this thread, human boltguns have recoil compensators built into them, whereas Astartes boltguns don't.

Keep in mind, modern rifles also have a lot of recoil compensators built into them too, to the point where pretty much all video games are incredibly inaccurate about the recoil they have (I could fire those weapons with less recoil than the characters in those games suffer, and I'm not a trained soldier).

Melissia wrote:

BeefCakeSoup wrote:

Belexar wrote:Maybe the reason for that is similar to the reason why Railguns can't be scaed down to Railrifles. They just can't be made that small if you want to actauly kill something. Bolters are a much more practical option in terms of mobility, even if it's inferior in power.

Actually Rail Rifles are scaled down to rail rifles and they do work quite well. In TT a path finder team can be kitted out with them as heavy weapons that punch through power armor with a pretty strong shot. This is the small frame of a Tau though, an Astartes could most likely carry a heavier rifle with no problem. Using TT and Lore in tandem shows that a Bolter is certainly good at what it does, I am merely stating that a variant of a more practical weapon would be a more logical choice with real world stuff factored in like carrying extra ammo etc.

It would, if Marines were front line soldiers, which they are not. Ammo expenditure is not an important consideration for a company of Marines, compared to a few regiments of Guard.

Don't you mean "they are front line soldiers" and then something about railguns being terrible weapons for close up, being sniper weapons that no doubt have extremely small ammo reserves due to the massive amount of power involved, if nothing else?

Bolters are ridiculously complex and inefficient weapons, in addition to being a logistical nightmare. Space Marines are shock troops that should theoretically only be deployed to break a specific strongpoint, allowing for conventional forces to pour through and carry the day, so they don't need something that can be resupplied by any available electrical generator, fire, or sunny spot. Of course, in practice they're nations unto themselves, who work independent of actual military forces, and engage in prolonged operations in which they spend many times the ammo they could physically carry...

We're not discussing the efectivenes of Boltguns. I will make a new thread for that. What we were discusing is the recoil of the Bolter. It has. It's big. Space Marines can handle it because of their armor. Look at the art, read the novels, read the codex, use common sense. The truth is out there. In there. Where I said it was.

PD: Also, we already established the paralels with the Gyrojet. The Bolter is based on it, but the main difference is that the Bolter adds its own punch to the thing and it's actually an effective weapon.

I didn't say anything about effectiveness, only efficiency. I also forgot to quote what I was responding to there, and sort of trailed off without ever getting to the point I was intending to make...

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Don't you mean "they are front line soldiers"

No. Marines are not front line soldiers.

Supplying a company of Marines for a war that lasts decades is a nightmare. Marines frequently run out of ammunition in extended fights.

Doing the same for a few regiments of Guard is a common occurrence. Guardsmen rarely run out of ammunition in extended fights.

Have in mind that there are many kinds of Marines. Also, as promised, I made a thread for discussion about the Functionality, effectiveness and eficiency of the Bolter. Feel free to drop by.

Brother Coa wrote:I have always imagine that they are making 2 types of bolter. For ordinary humans ( Guardsman, Commisars, SoB ) and a stronger ones for Astartes and Inquisitors.

This is canon.