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.

What Lynata says is more than likely true as they are right about their fluff 9 times out of 10, so ahead of time, agreed

 Themanwiththeplan wrote:
What Lynata says is more than likely true as they are right about their fluff 9 times out of 10, so ahead of time, agreed

Actually according to Lynata's own posts what s/he says is just their opinion and everyone's interpretation is technically legitimate

I stand corrected

 Flinty wrote:

Again, I'm sure that thousands of years of reasearch and progress in materials science could solve the robustness issue. And the Tau do do rather well with railguns as tank main armament. The scaled down ones for infantry use are anti-materiel rifles, rather than front-line combat rifles.

Maybe, but we're talking about thousands of years of research that have been flushed down the john more than once between M2 and M41. There's not necessarily as much advancement in the development of solid-projectile personal arms as one might expect surviving into M41, as the mainstay military weapon is a laser gun.

And the close runner (and arguably more prevalent, depending on how you like your PDF and chaos cultist fluff) up is an automatic slug thrower with caseless rounds

Indeed, but that's an autogun using a pre-loaded magazine, possibly featuring the tear-off foil strip I mentioned earlier that keeps rain and stuff out of the interior where the bullets are kept. If you have that kind of tech, well, why not go with it? Though it is a rather different ball of wax from a caseless revolver.

Because if the rounds are that fragile it would be hard to guarantee their effectiveness if you're relying on a simple foil strip. Much better to have reliable rounds, and seeing as we can never be definitive, in the interests of not going around the houses again what say we just agree that its plausible, but probably not the best idea?

Actually caseless roads can be a plastic like material with a harder tip to be shot. They could also be incredibly small if the firing charge did not have to be significantly improved in power. The gun material would have to be greatly improved but it has been in 40K as you have plasteel which is supposedly much stronger than steel.

Therefore you could have smalle (pinky tip) sized hard plastic bullets which would fire. Either gun could be case less or otherwise and probably would be in the IG as transporting brass casings with them would be ridiculous on the scale the IG shoot them.

As for the guns themselves I get the idea that the basic gun in 40K is much more advanced than a modern fire army though that advancement seems to be more along the lines of stability and toughness though it could still be bounds and leaps above modern weapons in stopping power and firing range. Does anybody have a range conversion factor that has real support?

It could be as simple as the level of ammo feed automation in either design. The autogun has a clip that you just plug in and it does the rest "automatically" and the stubbers are belt fed or otherwise loaded with "stubs" (bullet like projectiles casless or otherwise) where the process is thus not automatic.

Therefore you could have smalle (pinky tip) sized hard plastic bullets which would fire. Either gun could be case less or otherwise and probably would be in the IG as transporting brass casings with them would be ridiculous on the scale the IG shoot them.

This is why the IG's standard weapon is the lasgun. You only ship powercells and recharging units, no ammo to worry about, just the clips.

 Psienesis wrote:
Like I said, for a caseless revolver (which, by default, does not use a magazine, it uses a revolving cylinder), the cylinder itself would need to be pre-loaded, possibly disposable (becoming, in essence, a magazine), and easy to switch out during the battle.

Without the brass casing, a revolver has no means to keep the rounds in the chambers, they fall right through.

revolvers actually predate cased ammunition, such as the 1850's colt revolvers with were just the ball on top of powder, with maybe some paper to hold it together. you put the balls in with enough force that only the explosion makes them leave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_1851_Navy_Revolver
and revolvers have cylindrical magazines,
that it holds the bullets makes it a magazine, not that it is removable quickly IE cowboy lever action guns have tubular magazines, modern rifles have removable box magazines, ect


interestingly enough, the "Needle gun" is the name of one of these first caseless guns (truth is stranger then fiction!)

here is a link about caseless ammo,
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.ca/2010/05/cartridges-caseless-cartridges.html

easysauce wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Like I said, for a caseless revolver (which, by default, does not use a magazine, it uses a revolving cylinder), the cylinder itself would need to be pre-loaded, possibly disposable (becoming, in essence, a magazine), and easy to switch out during the battle.

Without the brass casing, a revolver has no means to keep the rounds in the chambers, they fall right through.

revolvers actually predate cased ammunition, such as the 1850's colt revolvers with were just the ball on top of powder, with maybe some paper to hold it together. you put the balls in with enough force that only the explosion makes them leave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_1851_Navy_Revolver
and revolvers have cylindrical magazines,
that it holds the bullets makes it a magazine, not that it is removable quickly IE cowboy lever action guns have tubular magazines, modern rifles have removable box magazines, ect


interestingly enough, the "Needle gun" is the name of one of these first caseless guns (truth is stranger then fiction!)

here is a link about caseless ammo,
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.ca/2010/05/cartridges-caseless-cartridges.html

Yeah, I know, I own several, in a variety of models, I used to do Civil War re-enactments back in the day. The backs of the cylinders aren't open, though. You fit a brass blasting cap over a nipple back there, then pour powder into the front, followed by packing in a lead ball and some wadding. Reloading a full, six-shot cylinder takes like 15, 20 minutes. Also, do not smoke while doing this, or you will probably blow your arse the hell up. For re-enactment purposes, since we're not using live ammo, you instead seal the front of the cylinders with axle grease or, if you're cheap and it's not too hot outside, peanut butter.

I agree with the 2nd ed explanation.

Autopistol: Beretta 93
Autogun: similar to any modern Assault rifle, M-16, AK, FNFAL, etc...

Stubber: Browning .50 Cal.

No, Jex, that's a heavy stubber.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
No, Jex, that's a heavy stubber.

Well, I never saw just a "Stubber" anywhere ever, always saw the heavy stubber.

Have you tried reading the rest of this thread? Or the black library?

I did, got bored by the insane amount of tripping on the carpet's flowers I saw. I work in firearms, so my eyes just glazed over while words moved pass my screen.

Besides, Lexicanum says it as well:
"Stub guns or slug guns are a name that refers to a wide variety of low-velocity, high-calibre pistols. "

Note how it is "Stub" not "stubber" being used.
Stub Revolver, Stub automatic
Not
Stubber revolver, Stubber automatic.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
No, Jex, that's a heavy stubber.

Well, I never saw just a "Stubber" anywhere ever, always saw the heavy stubber.

I think the term for personal-sized "stubbers" is actually "stubgun" or "slug-thrower". These can mean anything from a revolver, semi-auto pistol, to a rifle or even certain basic shotguns. So yeah, I too can only ever recall "stubbers" being used prefixed by "heavy".

Basically, I think it breaks down like this:

- stubgun = revolver/semi-auto pistol (Colt SAA/M1911)
- stub rifle = semi-auto/bolt action rifle (M1 Garand/M14)
- autopistol = machine pistol/sub-machine gun (Beretta 93R/MAC-11)
- autogun/autorifle = assault rife (Kalashnikov/M16)
- heavy stubber = heavy machine gun (MG 42/M60)

As far as I can remember (back to the release of Necromunda), the rankings of auto-weapons were:

-Stub Gun (handguns; the name can refer to a revolver OR semi-auto pistol)
-Autopistol (full auto pistol-frame like an Uzi or Mac 10)
-Autogun (full-frame assault rifle)
-Heavy Stubber (Heavy Machine gun)
-Autocannon (larger caliber than a Heavy Stubber with accompanying lower rate of fire.)

There was never a Stubber in 1st, 2nd editions, or Necomunda to my knowledge, only a Heavy Stubber.

It's possible that Inquisitor had differing names, but I don't have the book on-hand to check.

The Necromunda rulebook say "Stubbers or sluggers are primitive handguns...".

Rogue Trader refers to them as "stubs" for shorthand, rather than stubbers, but the idea is the same. The machine gun versions have always been heavy stubbers.

Ok, must have forgotten that. So then it's definite that Stubber, Slugger, and Stub Gun are all synonymous for semi-auto handguns, be they revolvers or magazine fed.