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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hahaha yeah, and if you look at things like bolt pistols or the older RT/2E bolters where the magazine is so far forward that chambering a round would just be shoving it right out the muzzle

Not necessarily. There are a variety of factors to consider. First being rocket propelled the barrel only serves to allow a build up of pressure sufficient to break inertia, meaning if the propellant technology and the micro-rocket technology were sufficiently advanced you wouldn't need much of a barrel at all. Many of the more advanced rockets and missile launch from a box with the sole purpose of holding it and minimizing collateral and smoke until the rocket motor is in full burn before release and generated pressure is independent of the launcher completely... that is to say no barrel or tube necessary. The fact that bolters and bolt pistols use the same rounds would be generally indicative of this. For such a weapon length would mostly just make it easier for the weapon operator to stabilize and aim it.



Next there are a variety of machine guns and shotguns that do not simply push rounds into battery. They will pull the cartridge back and out of the magazine to insert the round into a barrel located immediately above or below a magazine. This is very common for belt fed machine guns and given Chaos' propensities for belt fed bolters would be indicative of a similar feed mechanism. This is an example of a shotgun, I'm only using it because its more immediately apparent than the machine guns that use the style of feeding. While the oversized muzzle might make it seem like the barrel is huge, some flash suppressors an buzzle brakes simply dwarf the barrel diameter.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
.75 caliber rounds.

Which is amusing, given the number of people who insist that bolter rounds shouldn't be effective vs vehicles.

Yes. They should.

.50 caliber is effective vs. light vehicles,so far as I know.

Bolter rounds are .75 caliber and explode like grenades.

Except bolters can damage light vehicles in game, and the detonation isn't a shaped charge irrc, so the explosion might not be able to breach armor.

Keep in mind that a heavy stubber is basically a .50 machine gun, and lasguns are supposed to inflict damage similar to the impact caused by a .50 round, and they have no effect against light vehicles.

Incorrect. The bolter is a smg style, fully automatic weapon that fires a two stage, rocket propelled, .75 cal (20mm) shaped charge shell. The initial detination is the propellent which pushes the shell(not a bullet, thats different) down the barrel. Afterwards a tiny rocket engine ignites for greater speed, much in the same way modern artillery shells work.

Bolters are very obviously not made for penetrating, they are for mass trauma and shock value - that's why there are actual variants (Kraken rounds) which are specifically designed for penetration where the tip is of a different design.

Nowhere in the fluff that I know of is there art of a standard bolt round that doesn't just look like a giant pistol round -big diameter, snub (or nearly snub) nose. Unless they are also designed with a penetrating tip of easily melted metal that is ejected as a molten jet (like the tank round designed for penetration I can't remember the acronym of), they are like smaller, powder ignited, then later in flight jet-powered M40 grenades.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hahaha yeah, and if you look at things like bolt pistols or the older RT/2E bolters where the magazine is so far forward that chambering a round would just be shoving it right out the muzzle

Not necessarily. There are a variety of factors to consider. First being rocket propelled the barrel only serves to allow a build up of pressure sufficient to break inertia, meaning if the propellant technology and the micro-rocket technology were sufficiently advanced you wouldn't need much of a barrel at all. Many of the more advanced rockets and missile launch from a box with the sole purpose of holding it and minimizing collateral and smoke until the rocket motor is in full burn before release and generated pressure is independent of the launcher completely... that is to say no barrel or tube necessary.

Aye, however such weapons are fin stabilized however, and for weapons with ranges beyond a couple of hundred meters they typically have guidance systems, neither of which are mentioned as being features of bolters in any way, additonally, its very clear from from visual representations and descriptions of the weapons in operation that the bolters have barrels and bolts like traditional cartridge fed firearms, which, if such were the case, they would generally appear to be attempting to chamber rounds...by having them fall right out the muzzle

More to the point, theyre described as having a booster charge of sorts and typically have cartridge cases, which begs the question, if these are being retained...why bother with rockets at all and not just make them traditional cartridges?

The fact that bolters and bolt pistols use the same rounds would be generally indicative of this. For such a weapon length would mostly just make it easier for the weapon operator to stabilize and aim it.

If true, why are they ways represented as having significant effective range differences however? If the ammo is not dependent on a barrel, then why the range differences?

Next there are a variety of machine guns and shotguns that do not simply push rounds into the magazine. They will pull the cartridge back and out of the magazine to insert the round into a barrel located immediately above or below a magazine. This is very common for machine guns and given Chaos' propensities for belt fed bolters would be indicative of a similar feed mechanism.

possibly, though such CSM bolters usually have the feed area sufficiently far back to not be affected by the issue, save for the pistols. This method of operation works, but is relatively uncommon (particularly outside crew served weapons) and typically quite complicated, and there doesnt appear to be much room for the rear traverse of the round in that older bolter design unless its attempting to feed into the chamber through the barrel somehow...which makes little sense nor seem to serve a real purpose for such an action in a weapon built to be weilded like an SMG or a pistol when they could have just located the magazine further rearward (to say nothing of the weapon balance issues having the magazine that far forward).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hahaha yeah, and if you look at things like bolt pistols or the older RT/2E bolters where the magazine is so far forward that chambering a round would just be shoving it right out the muzzle

Not necessarily. There are a variety of factors to consider. First being rocket propelled the barrel only serves to allow a build up of pressure sufficient to break inertia, meaning if the propellant technology and the micro-rocket technology were sufficiently advanced you wouldn't need much of a barrel at all. Many of the more advanced rockets and missile launch from a box with the sole purpose of holding it and minimizing collateral and smoke until the rocket motor is in full burn before release and generated pressure is independent of the launcher completely... that is to say no barrel or tube necessary.

Aye, however such weapons are fin stabilized however, and for weapons with ranges beyond a couple of hundred meters they typically have guidance systems, neither of which are mentioned as being features of bolters in any way, additonally, its very clear from from visual representations and descriptions of the weapons in operation that the bolters have barrels and bolts like traditional cartridge fed firearms, which, if such were the case, they would generally appear to be attempting to chamber rounds...by having them fall right out the muzzle

More to the point, theyre described as having a booster charge of sorts and typically have cartridge cases, which begs the question, if these are being retained...why bother with rockets at all and not just make them traditional cartridges?

In the case of bolter's round the rocket would serve two purposes... To induce spin stabilization and the course correction described for certain rounds. You can't course correct something moving as fast as a rifle bullet. The closest thing to a guided rifle projectile in real life was Project Exacto by DARPA which modified a .50cal round; it was saboted and fired from a smooth barrel... traveling slower than usual and using an internally shifting mass to alter its spin to allow the round to course correct upto a foot at 500 yards. Those required fins and that mass shifter, but a sufficiently advanced rocket motor could do both, with fewer parts. A bolter would likely use its rocket motor to induce stabilizing spin and similarly adjust its course at range. Such a projectile wouldn't need fins. Motor induced spin stabilization of rockets predates fin stabilization, the preferance for fin stabilization is due to the greater ease of quality control. By eschewing fins and using a rocket motor the bolt round could use a smaller diameter casing where it would otherwise need to be oversized to accommodate the fins and or saboting.

Bolters to be real and to function the way they're described would require some sort of guidance. The boltguns themselves are sufficiently bulky to house a guidance system with a lot of otherwise unused space. Indicative of a guidance system is also the ability to use a variety of bolt rounds who's description would otherwise prohibit them from being fired from an unguided gun.

I think given the variety of bolter rounds that exist there are likely purely ballistic bolt rounds and by utilizing a casing for otherwise rocket propelled rounds allows for the universal cross compatibility. Given the great diversity of ammunition that would exist for a projectile weapon being fielded across a galaxy the greatest technological marvel of something as sophisticated and advance as a bolter would actually be the reliability with which it could use all those variants of ammo. The US government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into insuring a very tight consistency between the cartridges manufactured at its 5 different ammunition producing facilities and yet a precision shooter would likely notice the differences. Every Space Marine is likely as discerning and yet a bolter would have to operate consistently enough regardless of if the Marine is operating across the galaxy using bolt rounds from a back water Forgeworld.

The fact that bolters and bolt pistols use the same rounds would be generally indicative of this. For such a weapon length would mostly just make it easier for the weapon operator to stabilize and aim it.

If true, why are they ways represented as having significant effective range differences however? If the ammo is not dependent on a barrel, then why the range differences?

The bolt rounds do have an initial conventional charge to expel the round out the barrel and that would be impacted by barrel length. Regardless of course correction from a bolt round its effective range would still be governed by the abilities of the shooter to aim the weapon and it's simply easier to aim a longer weapon that's more easily braced.

Next there are a variety of machine guns and shotguns that do not simply push rounds into the magazine. They will pull the cartridge back and out of the magazine to insert the round into a barrel located immediately above or below a magazine. This is very common for machine guns and given Chaos' propensities for belt fed bolters would be indicative of a similar feed mechanism.

possibly, though such CSM bolters usually have the feed area sufficiently far back to not be affected by the issue, save for the pistols. This method of operation works, but is relatively uncommon (particularly outside crew served weapons) and typically quite complicated, and there doesnt appear to be much room for the rear traverse of the round in that older bolter design unless its attempting to feed into the chamber through the barrel somehow...which makes little sense nor seem to serve a real purpose for such an action in a weapon built to be weilded like an SMG or a pistol when they could have just located the magazine further rearward (to say nothing of the weapon balance issues having the magazine that far forward).

There are a variety of assault rifles built on this principle. On one program I worked on one of the challenges we faced was propagation of an out of battery detonation into the magazine setting off the rounds in the magazine. This sort of out of line magazine would be much safer for a weapon shooting light ordnance projectiles... The alternative would be an inline but segregating drum magazine like on the AA-12 or not fix the problem but plan for the eventuality by using an overweight steel spall shield to protect the shooter in the case of both the AA-12 and XM-25.

On those original versions of the Ferrox bolter consider how thin that magazine is... If that conveys the rough diameter of the round relative to the rest of the bolter it becomes quickly apparent that the bolter's barrel is oversized and is likely mostly the appearance of an overly large muzzle falsely representing the barrel. If you scaled the end of a barrel on a Bolter its close to 1.5 inches in diameter which for shooting a .75 cal projectile would be excessive. If a bolter fires the way it's described the barrel could only be thinner and lighter than it'd otherwise need to be due to lower internal pressures, there be no reason to go the other direction. The large 1.5" muzzle would likely some sort of recoil booster to assist in cycling the weapon. On those original bolter models if you consider the magazine's thickness to be accurate than there would be sufficient room to draw back a round. At .75cal a bolt round is the size of a fat thumb... Let's for the sake of argument say a marine's thumb, and there is more than a thumbsize distance between the barrel and top edge of the magazine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Bolters are very obviously not made for penetrating, they are for mass trauma and shock value - that's why there are actual variants (Kraken rounds) which are specifically designed for penetration where the tip is of a different design.

Nowhere in the fluff that I know of is there art of a standard bolt round that doesn't just look like a giant pistol round -big diameter, snub (or nearly snub) nose. Unless they are also designed with a penetrating tip of easily melted metal that is ejected as a molten jet (like the tank round designed for penetration I can't remember the acronym of), they are like smaller, powder ignited, then later in flight jet-powered M40 grenades.

They are at times described as using a shaped charge which is indicative of a penetrating explosive charge... LIke HEAT round from a tank's cannon, which is where I think you were going.

The people who say bolters have .75 caliber are not wrong but it is omitting much of the truth.

Bolter caliber varies. Early marks such as Tigrus and Umbra had different calibers. Astartes bolters also have a higher caliber than the smaller human weapons, according to various sources like the RPGs and BL novels.

It seems pretty obvious to me that a rocket attached an explosive slug could serve 2 purposes - guidance is not one of them (at least it doesn't seem practical for such a short ranged weapon). Range or impact velocity are the only two logical reasons to attach a rocket motor to a small explosive. Modern grenade launchers (which fire similar sized projectiles) can fire over a kilometer with an effective range of 300 meters. 300 meters is more than enough effective range for an infantry user - range can't be the reason. Now - Impact velocity - when firing a large slug (.75 cal) increased impact velocity would be devastating as it would increase the penetration value of the slug which increases the value of the small explosive payload. Another reason could be a more linear flight path of the projectile (is a result of increased velocity) this would also make things easier to hit with the weapon (an added benefit). All in all. Fluff compared to this weapon is a joke.

The bolter does not have good range - penetration - or overall damage profile. Something has got to give.

Rending to me seems like the best solution.

The bolter was never a bad weapon in the game until the unending crazy arms race began. There seems to have been a huge increase in dangerous small arms in 40K over the past few editions, in turn decreasing the usefulness of armour (therefore requiring more and more silly armour/saves/rules) and making more basic weapons utterly useless.

The bolter has never been a bad basic rifle for infantry models until recently. Best? No, but definitely not bad (particularly with the rapid fire rules).

 Elbows wrote:
The bolter was never a bad weapon in the game until the unending crazy arms race began. There seems to have been a huge increase in dangerous small arms in 40K over the past few editions, in turn decreasing the usefulness of armour (therefore requiring more and more silly armour/saves/rules) and making more basic weapons utterly useless.

The bolter has never been a bad basic rifle for infantry models until recently. Best? No, but definitely not bad (particularly with the rapid fire rules).

It's always been bad. In 2nd ed, it was competing with the sonic blaster. It was bad in 5th because of the rapid fire rules.

 Elbows wrote:
The bolter was never a bad weapon in the game until the unending crazy arms race began. There seems to have been a huge increase in dangerous small arms in 40K over the past few editions, in turn decreasing the usefulness of armour (therefore requiring more and more silly armour/saves/rules) and making more basic weapons utterly useless.

The bolter has never been a bad basic rifle for infantry models until recently. Best? No, but definitely not bad (particularly with the rapid fire rules).

It's been bad because it's always been treated like a basic weapon on a very expensive elite generalist unit. Elite units can not use a weapon this weak. Don't tell me space marines are common ether - they are elite 1000 man armies that is their job to quell planets - I don't think a basic weapon will do the trick - nothing in the fluff suggest it is a basic weapon ether. it's a gun the fires armor penetrating 20 MM rocket propelled grenades. I'm not saying marines should get it for free but it should be powerful. A bolt pistol should be a little weaker probably but still devastating.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
The bolter was never a bad weapon in the game until the unending crazy arms race began. There seems to have been a huge increase in dangerous small arms in 40K over the past few editions, in turn decreasing the usefulness of armour (therefore requiring more and more silly armour/saves/rules) and making more basic weapons utterly useless.

The bolter has never been a bad basic rifle for infantry models until recently. Best? No, but definitely not bad (particularly with the rapid fire rules).

It's been bad because it's always been treated like a basic weapon on a very expensive elite generalist unit. Elite units can not use a weapon this weak. Don't tell me space marines are common ether - they are elite 1000 man armies that is their job to quell planets - I don't think a basic weapon will do the trick - nothing in the fluff suggest it is a basic weapon ether. it's a gun the fires armor penetrating 20 MM rocket propelled grenades. I'm not saying marines should get it for free but it should be powerful. A bolt pistol should be a little weaker probably but still devastating.

I always lol at the 1000 man fluff. Impossible. And the table top boltgun is a damn joke for an "elite" army. It's so elite that it can't penetrate fire warrior armor.