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.

I was wondering how people feel about how bolters look. Was talking to a friend who hates the look of them with a passion. I'm kinda torn on it. I they look really big and hulking and sometimes they can look cool, but sometimes I see art or close-ups that make them look a little goofy.

What do most of you guys think? Bolters look cool or do they need a slight makeover?

They're big and bulky because they're meant to be carried by big and bulky dudes. I think they look really cool, and have enough hard edges that they contrast with the smoothness of Space Marines and don't just get lost in there.

They're SMG sized automatic RPGs. They should look bulky.

To expand on that, I love their look. It's like seeing someone hold an oversized MP5, and considering Space Marines role as lightning fast rapid response fighters, that suits them perfectly. They're held by guys in bulky, thick armour, so they need a bulky firearm to go with it, and Bolters fit the look, giving them a look more like heavily armoured special ops teams from movies. Considering the over the top nature of the setting and that it follows the rule of cool rather than trying to make things practical, it totally fits.

That and the chainsword, another ludicrous weapon.
'Hey, how can we make a dull old sword more grimdark?'
'Put a chainsaw mechanism over the cutting egde'
'And give the chain teeth! Perfect, we now have a chainsword. What an awesome name too.'

I really like most of the Forgeworld ones and the CSM http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space_Marine-Infantry-Accessories/SPACE-MARINE-BOLTER-PHOBOS-PATTERN-X10.html these are my favorite.

You think they look funny now. At least the moved the clip back towards the trigger. 1st edition the magazine was almost all the way in the front. Functionally It made sense in a way because a bolt doesn't really need a long barrel, but it looked kind of funny. They were also about half the size they are now.



These are still the marines I picture in my head, but that's because I started playing back then.

Ah, when they were more stormtrooper than space knight! Good times!

I think what I like best about them is that they don't look too science-fiction-y. Like someone said they look like oversized SMG's. The familiarty of the look with real world weapons is appealing for some reason. Kinda like why I liked the Halo guns.

The bolter is my favourite looking infantry small arms weapon in 40k, something about the bulkyness and hard edges looks menacing.

Yeah
Though i like heavy bolters sooo much more.

They -Look- cool.

Speaking as someone who ..I guess the term armorer is appropriate....however....

Why is the ejection port not on the same level as the bore?
Why is the mag release apparently some sort of lever that goes up and down?
Why is there no useful backup sight on the thing?
Why does it look like the magazine has to go three quarters of the way into the weapon straight up (Given that the magwell is straight...yet the rest of the magazine is not, implying it needs the curve to account for the shape of the cartridges....what does the upper portion of the magazine look like? In artwork its just Ye Olde "Banana clip!" ....which is another layer of what the <censored>...how do the cartridges even make the what must be a four inch vertical gap from the top of the magazine to the breech?...) ?
Why in the name of the emperor does it even HAVE an ejection port, and a brass cartridge casing, if the damn thing has a rocket engine up its butt? Why not just ....I don't know...Do away with the idea of a cased cartridge in general and remove the need to automatically extract and eject things that may very well gum up the works in the middle of "Oh god, oh god i'm going to die in the next five seconds" when it seems that all fluff sources are going gaga over the fact that "It's not a regular gun! it shoots ROCKET PROPELLED GRENADES!"?...It makes no sense!

Not saying it couldn't theoretically be made to function, but the design is absurdly bulky, it's almost certainly heavier than it needs to be, and it can't NOT be twice as complicated as it should be internally.

...But it looks cool.


PS: Don't get me started on the heavy bolter.

It's probably similar to why they made things with oh, 2~3x the steel they actually needed back in the Soviet Union. A) You've got it around. B) It inflates productions figures and puts more people to work.

Rocket propelled rounds can fail to ignite, so there has to be an ejection port to let the SM extract the dud shell.

They have a shell because they fire normally then the rocket ignites.

I thought they weren't actually RPG but more likely HE rounds, so the propulsion is akin to a common bullet... It'd explain the range at least, since there are actual rockets in the game.

GeckoOBac wrote:I thought they weren't actually RPG but more likely HE rounds, so the propulsion is akin to a common bullet... It'd explain the range at least, since there are actual rockets in the game.

Nope, remember not all rockets are created equal. Big battleship guns that can send a shell miles, work on the same basic principles of little hold out pistols that can't be accurate more than a couple meters out. It's been fluff for a long time that bolters fire mini RPGs.

Bolter shells are twin-propellant. A charge ignites which throws it from the gun and a solid fuel propellant accellerates it up.

Hence the Bolter works at point-blank and long-distance range.

It's big for a reason.
It fires really big bullets.
It's a submachine sized gun that fires rounds that are 19-20mm across (0.75 cal) is going to be bigger than some dinky little .25ACP holdout. Those 'bullets' are bigger than a .50cal BMG slug - otherwise they wouldn't hold enough propellant to get anywhere.

An ejector port is still the quickest way to clear a dud.
Without one, you will have to disassemble the weapon (under fire, no doubt), manually clear it, reassemble it, reload and cycle it.
With one, flick the lever, problem's gone. Efficiency.

The world's first CASELESS 'production' rifle, the G-11, had an ejection port, even though it shared very little in relation to other weapons of the time.

From left to right: 5.56 mm NATO, .388, .50, 20 mm

The 5.56 mm NATO is the standard round for NATO small arms. The .50 is heavy machine gun level. The 20 mm is around bolter size.



This is a 20 mm cannon.

Hells yeah you're going to need a big gun.

Andrew1975 wrote:You think they look funny now. At least the moved the clip back towards the trigger. 1st edition the magazine was almost all the way in the front. Functionally It made sense in a way because a bolt doesn't really need a long barrel, but it looked kind of funny. They were also about half the size they are now.



These are still the marines I picture in my head, but that's because I started playing back then.

Did anyone else notice it says Have a nice day on the closest space marines bolter?

Is a bolt rifle officially 0.75 inch bore? It's basically 19mm.

I don't know what measurements the IoM uses.

A boltgun, killkrazy, is indeed .75 calibre. I dont think theres any fluff on autocannons, heavy bolters or assault cannons and the like, but the standard bolter and bolt pistols are .75cal.

I think some people are forgetting that a boltgun would be the size of your body, because space marines are huge. All the inner workings they need would be able to fit.

Couple problems I have with them:

On the model, there is maximum of 10 shots in a clip. Obviously IRL there would be around 30 (Do bolters fire in 4 shot bursts when set to burst?)

Many artworks have boltguns at their real life size, but with the same detail as you would find on a 4th edition space marine boltgun. A good example of this is the Dow2 intro movie, the boltguns are huge, but they are for all intents and purposes boxes. The sights are also about 4 inches across in these interpretations, which makes you wonder why they are there at all?

A good picture of how I interpret IRL boltguns is this:

Andrew1975 wrote:You think they look funny now. At least the moved the clip back towards the trigger. 1st edition the magazine was almost all the way in the front. Functionally It made sense in a way because a bolt doesn't really need a long barrel, but it looked kind of funny. They were also about half the size they are now.



These are still the marines I picture in my head, but that's because I started playing back then.

Indeed. Plus beaky marines with PIAT looking missile launchers and bayonet bolters were Kewl!

Consider the following:

A Bolter shell is about the same size as a 12ga shotgun shell. One of the few current automatic shotguns is the AA-12. Look at how bulky that thing is. And the box magazine only holds 8 rounds.

Bolters should most definitely have drum magazines, but are probably about the right size.

SOFDC wrote:They -Look- cool.

Speaking as someone who ..I guess the term armorer is appropriate....however....

1. Why is the ejection port not on the same level as the bore?
2. Why is the mag release apparently some sort of lever that goes up and down?
3. Why is there no useful backup sight on the thing?
4. Why does it look like the magazine has to go three quarters of the way into the weapon straight up (Given that the magwell is straight...yet the rest of the magazine is not, implying it needs the curve to account for the shape of the cartridges....what does the upper portion of the magazine look like? In artwork its just Ye Olde "Banana clip!" ....which is another layer of what the <censored>...how do the cartridges even make the what must be a four inch vertical gap from the top of the magazine to the breech?...) ?
5. Why in the name of the emperor does it even HAVE an ejection port, and a brass cartridge casing, if the damn thing has a rocket engine up its butt? Why not just ....I don't know...Do away with the idea of a cased cartridge in general and remove the need to automatically extract and eject things that may very well gum up the works in the middle of "Oh god, oh god i'm going to die in the next five seconds" when it seems that all fluff sources are going gaga over the fact that "It's not a regular gun! it shoots ROCKET PROPELLED GRENADES!"?...It makes no sense!

Not saying it couldn't theoretically be made to function, but the design is absurdly bulky, it's almost certainly heavier than it needs to be, and it can't NOT be twice as complicated as it should be internally.

...But it looks cool.


PS: Don't get me started on the heavy bolter.

to answer your questions

1. because the mechanisim inside sends the casing up and out

2. why do modern guns go side to side?

3. it has iron sights, but bolters are linked with the PAs HUD in the helmet so the marine can fire from the hip while aiming down the barrel.

4. the Banana Clip goes further into the gun and is much longer then it appears.

5. it has an ejection port for the same reason ALL our modern guns do. it isn't caseless. the Bolt uses a 2 stage firing system. 1st is the initial charge which is how modern firearms work, this is contained in the casing. the 2nd charge is the rocket stage which ignites after leaving the barrel. this allows the bolter to be useful at short range, but also to be able to be even more powerful at long ranges.

Andrew1975 wrote:You think they look funny now. At least the moved the clip back towards the trigger. 1st edition the magazine was almost all the way in the front. Functionally It made sense in a way because a bolt doesn't really need a long barrel, but it looked kind of funny. They were also about half the size they are now.



These are still the marines I picture in my head, but that's because I started playing back then.

I remember those!

How in the heck were those supposed to work. Even at a young age I knew better than that and it 'irked' me for a long time.