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.

The idea of a bullpup lasgun is the same idea as a bullpup assault rifle, but with fewer drawbacks. The ammunition (lasgun battery pack) is in the back, and the barrel extends the entire way down the gun, reducing gun size.

In truth, a bullpup lasgun actually makes MORE sense than a bullpup solid ammunition rifle because there's less issues with ammunition expelling-- normally bullpup weapons, barring specific designs, cannot be ambidextrous.

riplikash wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:For barrel lengths it might have something to do with focusing the laser. maybe they add lenses at particular intervals to make the shot more intense to reduce blooming.

This would make sense for a sniper rifle because at very long ranges blooming could greatly reduce the effectivness of the gun. additional focusing lenses would increase the weapons lethal range.

And excellent thought. It could explain the barrel oddities. I don't know that I would 100% buy it, beams aren't going to bloom to any reasonable degree at the ranges people do combat at.

Gah!

OK people, Lasers do NOT have lenses in them, they are NOT focussed.

If you feel the need to post about lasers please read this:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/laser/fundamentals.htm

A laser works like this, a photon excites an atom, the atom emits another photon, now there are 2.
They stimulate the release of more photons, so on and so on.

Think of it like a nuclear chain reaction for light.

There are no lenses.

The benefit of a longer barrel could be that the laser is more powerful for a given heat output or gets less hot for a given power.
It might make the manufacture easier or cheaper.

You have to consider though that it is most likely that the reason for the different lengths of barrels on Lasguns is that - like most people - the fluff writers and sculptors have absolutely no idea how a damn laser actually works.


On the subject of burst fire, there would be absolutely no point having a burst firing laser.
Burst fire on a weapon is there to allow a greater chance of a hit on a single trigger pull.
With a Lasgun the weapon hits exactly where you are aiming, wind and gravity (on a planetary scale) has no effect on it.
It also hit simultaneously with the trigger pull, there is no delay in firing since light travels at -the speed of light- so the target cannot move while the shot is in the air.

That means that if you aim properly there is no increased chance of a hit from firing multiple shots.

The other use of burst or automatic fire is FIBUA, in that case a constant beam (even of reduced power and limited duration) would be much more useful.
If the fluff writers or imperium understood their weapon systems the options would be Safe - Single shot - Constant beam.


Ah well.

According to the IIUP (such a great book) the main difference between a longlas and a short-pattern lasgun is that the longlas has a heavier, sturdier barrel with a flash suppressor (though what help it would be I don't know-- unless longlas lasers are invisible unlike normal lasers which are usually depicted as red?).

The barrels actually are attachments in a standard Mars Pattern Lasgun, which can be easily replaced by screwing/unscrewing them, and the long-las likely is made to withstand higher power settings more than a normal lasgun.

riplikash wrote:

Lightcavalier wrote:In other news...its 40k. Form Follows Function! If it looks cool in a drawing or on a model, then it exists that way, regardless of how it works or not.

This kind of comment is pointless. People enjoy discussing the hows and why's of fictional universes and rationalizing why things are done the way they are. That is WHY this particular sub-forum exists.

Why is that so hard to understand? How come in every discussion of the mechanics of a universe someone has to chime in with this same sentiment? It adds nothing to the discussion. If you don't enjoy these types of discussion you don't have to read the thread.

You'll get used to it.

I do actually enjoy this discussion. As it were I only posted that because there are some times in this universe where something just does not make sense. ex. I fully agree that a bullpup lasgun appears a little redundant. There was no malice towards the thread meant at all.
And my statement still stands, even in universe. If there is no benefit to building a bullpup lasgun, then some arms designer probably thought the design looked neat and knocked one up...then sold millons of them.
I apologize if anyone felt offended by my (now overquoted) post....as well...complaining about what you believe the intent of my post to be adds nothing to this thread.

What are you talking about? As pointed out, a bullpup lasgun makes perfect sense. It's has all the benefits of a real bullpup assault rifle and you don't have to worry about shooting yourself in the face with casings if you're a southpaw.

My comment was based back in the part of the discussion where we had yet to be informed that the length of the barrel of a las weapon really mattered at all.
It would actually have the usual benefits of a bullpup, while also having next to no/no recoil

Well instead of barrel length increasing muzzle velocity it would be focusing lenses doing more.....focusing.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Well instead of barrel length increasing muzzle velocity it would be focusing lenses doing more.....focusing.

rob-or-ross wrote:
Gah!

OK people, Lasers do NOT have lenses in them, they are NOT focussed.

If you feel the need to post about lasers please read this:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/laser/fundamentals.htm

A laser works like this, a photon excites an atom, the atom emits another photon, now there are 2.
They stimulate the release of more photons, so on and so on.

Think of it like a nuclear chain reaction for light.

There are no lenses.

The benefit of a longer barrel could be that the laser is more powerful for a given heat output or gets less hot for a given power.
It might make the manufacture easier or cheaper.

You have to consider though that it is most likely that the reason for the different lengths of barrels on Lasguns is that - like most people - the fluff writers and sculptors have absolutely no idea how a damn laser actually works.

Hi.

That post took me a long time to write.

I feel bad that you didn't read it.

The TL : DR is this:

Laser light has parallel photons, that is by definition the opposite of focussing.
There is no focussing in a laser
There are no lenses in a laser

From what I imagine, the Las weapons all use the same ammo, so they have to be of similar design.

So I'd imagine a Laspistol as essentially an AKS74U pistol, with a Lascarbine as an AK74S and a standard Lasgun as a normal AK47.
Or a Laspistol as one of those stupid cut off AR15 pistols, a Lascarbine as an M4, and a Lasgun as an M16A2, etc etc etc.

Yes they all use the same ammo.

Electricity.

So do toasters but they don't all look the same.


The problem is that nothing in use today is equivalent to a Lasgun, the way it causes damage has no parallel.

That means there are no equivalent weapons.

There are equivalent damage levels but there will always be a caveat.

Because it is a laser weapon if it hits ceramic of the right formulation it will do very little damage.
A bullet would smash it.

However a bullet will do limited damage to a fuel tank, in and out.
A Laser hit would definitely ignite it.

You can make comparisons but you can't make simplistic ones.

rob-or-ross wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Well instead of barrel length increasing muzzle velocity it would be focusing lenses doing more.....focusing.

rob-or-ross wrote:
Gah!

OK people, Lasers do NOT have lenses in them, they are NOT focussed.

If you feel the need to post about lasers please read this:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/laser/fundamentals.htm

A laser works like this, a photon excites an atom, the atom emits another photon, now there are 2.
They stimulate the release of more photons, so on and so on.

Think of it like a nuclear chain reaction for light.

There are no lenses.

The benefit of a longer barrel could be that the laser is more powerful for a given heat output or gets less hot for a given power.
It might make the manufacture easier or cheaper.

You have to consider though that it is most likely that the reason for the different lengths of barrels on Lasguns is that - like most people - the fluff writers and sculptors have absolutely no idea how a damn laser actually works.

Hi.

That post took me a long time to write.

I feel bad that you didn't read it.

The TL : DR is this:

Laser light has parallel photons, that is by definition the opposite of focussing.
There is no focussing in a laser
There are no lenses in a laser

Hi there yourself. Lasguns have focusings rings or focusing lenses. They are mentioned in the background. A lasgun doesn't work exactly like a laser pen.

I would submit that the reason Lasguns don't work like lasers is because the people who wrote the fluff didn't know how how lasers work.

They know they don't kill people.

I'll just leave these here:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=123079]Grand 40k sticky

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=cda00edc00ea32042e031d3cb2a0aee5
Scroll down and check other pages to find 40k analysis.

Yes yes, I know you're a huge fan of stardestroyer.net's bulletin boards, stop spamming every thread with those links...

Melissia wrote:Yes yes, I know you're a huge fan of stardestroyer.net's bulletin boards, stop spamming every thread with those links...

I'm not really a fan of SD.net, its just that they are the only ones doing analysis of 40k fluff and thus I posted the same link in 3 different threads in order to help you guys. Thats all.

As far as "lasguns" go they encompass functionally any kind of rifle. Battle rifle, assault rifle, semi-automatic, probably even bolt action analogues (you have rifles that take time to charge between shots, and there are the single use hotshots.) They vary in power, rate of fire, size and weight, range, and all the other factors, and there's literally hundreds of variations.

Oh and someone already brought up the possibility that lasguns may not be lasers. I'd bet at least some of them aren't, since some lasguns can actually fire for some distance underwater Personally I tend to think some of them have particle beam like qualities (not unlike how lance weapons have been described in BFG...)

If people really want a good site to go to to learn about how a hypothetical laser weapon might work there's Luke Campbell's excellent laser death ray site and to a lesser extent there is the Atomic Rockets energy weapons sidearms page.

Please please pleas stop using that term! battle rifle is a redundant term and has been since the mid 60's. battle rifles refered to the semi-auto rifles like the M1 garrand or the M14, which are compleatly different weapons to M16's or AK's which use reduced power cartriges and are full auto, or at least capable for such. I hear people talking about battle rifles and I keep having to remember that most people have no idea when it comes to weapons. Now, for those people who are going to start pointing to the HK 417 etc which are being refered to as "battle rifles", this is a mistake, these are properly known as an MRS or "marksman Rifle System" which sounds dicky but its the proper designation. for the record, these types of weapons are assault rifles like the M16 but have larger rounds (7.62 compared to 5.56), but still the same reduced sized cartrige (7.62 round for a 417 has less powder than that for a .30 rifle round). In short; battle rifle is a silly term, please stop using it, it hurts my brain.

this aside, configurations depend more on where the weapon is used and the particular training style more than efficiency of fire power. ie: how effective is the weapon as a close combat implement, does the bayonet extend far enough that you can stab an ork before it takes your head off, can you still move and fire effectively with it in CQB, have you got the range to effectively engage the enemy in open terrain, does the weapon fit into your gear when your droping from a valkyrie. these are all valid considerations in a weapon and as you may have already guessed, they effect how troops are trained.

for example; elysians use a bulpup config lasgun. this is an ineffective melee weapon due to its short length and smaller mass, however this makes it good for shooting at close quaters and compact/light enough to be easy for drop troopers to carry.

also, modern lasers are increadably inefficient and not particularly powerfull. all lasers are particle weapons (dual nature of light and all that, look up ur physics text books). lasers also loose power over any significant distance so focussing/ collimation etc might be a sollution; we dont know because laser technology in this day and age is very crude and undeveloped.

then look in Dawn of War. when Guardsmen shoot their lasgun, the weapon jerks back a lil bit. yes recoil just like reguar firearms....

so what? what is AdMech physics? is it really works like blasters in Star Wars?

=^.^=

Star Wars blasters are actually closer to plasma weapons, since they shoot bolts of ionized Tibanna gas.

As has already been mentioned, many sources that do follow the "has recoil"-interpretation (regardless of whether the lasers shoot blue or red energy and beams or bolts) explain it by saying it's the sudden heat-triggered expansion of atmosphere in front of the barrel, like a small invisible explosion producing a slight kick. It's not entirely bulletproof physics, but good enough for me.

Don't bring star wars blasters into this. What they are is even more contentious than how a lasgun works.

Lynata wrote:Star Wars blasters are actually closer to plasma weapons, since they shoot bolts of ionized Tibanna gas.

As has already been mentioned, many sources that do follow the "has recoil"-interpretation (regardless of whether the lasers shoot blue or red energy and beams or bolts) explain it by saying it's the sudden heat-triggered expansion of atmosphere in front of the barrel, like a small invisible explosion producing a slight kick. It's not entirely bulletproof physics, but good enough for me.

Yea, I pretty much think same. Since heated air(and all matter) expands, with the kind of near instant temperature changes a high powered laser would cause I can imagine it giving a kick. Also explains why they would still have some form of kinetic energy when you hit something.*

*This is all based on bs cause I know feth all about science.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Don't bring star wars blasters into this. What they are is even more contentious than how a lasgun works.

They're pretty well explained, actually. Chiefly because Star Wars actually has a canon policy and doesn't allow hundreds of writers to contradict each other.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster#Blaster_mechanics

To bad starwars is just boring It has no business in this topic.

Vaporizing stuff to impart motion to it is possible - it's been one of the discussed methods for deflecting killer asteroids (using nukes). A sufficiently violent explosive vaporization could probably knock someone backwards, but the detials get a lil messy (its the variables y'see..)

I'm not too sure at the point of the barrel, though. I have heard that if you have some sort of grit or dust or some sort of foreign matter on the lense when you fire it, it can convert that material to vapor rapidly and explosively which might impart some kind of recoil (how much again.. depends). I dont think air would do that though - a laser has to be transparent to air (or mostly so) to be an effective weapon at all (Soft X-rays make a lousy laser for example. Soft X-rays are the stuff that cause nuclear explosions.)

There are two possibilities for lasgun "recoil." One is that the weapon is designed to work on some sort of chemical reaction. This has not, to my knowledge, ever happened, but it would perversely fit into canon the same way you get wood-powered Leman Russ tanks. It also wouldn't surprise me if the Munitorum had some sort of adaptor that could run a lasgun off gasoline, promethium, hydrogen (or a fuel cell,) etc.,

The more likely answer is that it has something to do with the cooling mechanism - and they recoil when they eject the coolant. This actually has some basis in fact from some of the novels (like Ghostmaker) as I recall. It would also explain the absence of cooling fins or radiators on a lasgun. (Disadvantage is your weapon relies on a consumable commodity.) If you fire the weapon on full auto or its starting to overheat alot, you might end up getting the gun ejecting lots of coolant.. hence recoil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:Don't bring star wars blasters into this. What they are is even more contentious than how a lasgun works.

They're pretty well explained, actually. Chiefly because Star Wars actually has a canon policy and doesn't allow hundreds of writers to contradict each other.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster#Blaster_mechanics

No they're not. I have a ton of STar Wars EU material.. and I still remember most of it. I read/collected most of that stuff before I got into 40K novels and materials. Only certain sources go with plasma. Some say they're charged particle beams, which is not the same as plasma. Some treat them as bolts of light. They've even been described as projectile weapons (Attack of the clones novelization and you actually see shell casings ejected from some blasters - CF TESB when Han is blasting Vader. He also closes his eyes. :lol: ) Authors tend ot be as variable with blasters as 40K writers are with laser and plasma and melta guns.



Also I tend not to trust wookieepedia 100%, there's always a certain measure of speculation involved in that and they have some very bizarre attitudes regarding canon or source uses. I think they even included Death STars From Star Tours rides or something silly.... They even consider toys canon. (I have very unpleasant memories of SW canon debates as well I would prever not revisiting.)

Las Pistols are regular side arms.

Las Guns are the standard issue weapon for the majority of the imperial guard with hundreds, if not thousands of different patterns to choose from, so trying to say a Las gun is X type rifle correct, but their also Y,Z,A,B type rifle as well.

Some pattern las guns also take certain sized magazines. For example, the Tanith's las guns take a size 5 battery while the Phantine's take a size 3. And some patterns have different settings to change the intensity of the bolts; low power, exchanging intensity for extended battery life or high power, exchanging battery life for stronger intensity.

The differences in each pattern can be aesthetic to functional.

Las Carbines are compact variants of the Las Gun, where its smaller size and less weight are ideal for CQB (as someone mentioned) as the design allows better recoil compensation when going to full auto.

I personally like the open-endedness of Las Gun designs. Unlike Bolters, they can take a myriad of styles, which drew me to playing Guard in the first place.

Now if only you could take that energy and place it on the table top...

Connor MacLeod wrote:No they're not. I have a ton of STar Wars EU material.. and I still remember most of it. I read/collected most of that stuff before I got into 40K novels and materials. Only certain sources go with plasma. Some say they're charged particle beams, which is not the same as plasma. Some treat them as bolts of light. They've even been described as projectile weapons (Attack of the clones novelization and you actually see shell casings ejected from some blasters - CF TESB when Han is blasting Vader. He also closes his eyes. :lol: ) Authors tend ot be as variable with blasters as 40K writers are with laser and plasma and melta guns.

Lucas' canon policy deals with all of that, though, be it by retcons or by elimination. Lucasfilm even has an employee whose job it is to keep the setting and all official products consistent with each other. You have flaws in the lore of every franchise - the difference with Star Wars is just that it's way easier to keep it straight and see who fethed up. On the other hand, with 40k there's the leeway that it's all right and none of it is wrong, on the basis that it's perfectly okay to have a totally different interpretation.

The SW novelizations have always been weird, though, I think.

But let's not turn this into a SW vs 40k discussion.

Laser light has parallel photons, that is by definition the opposite of focussing.
There is no focussing in a laser
There are no lenses in a laser

40k lasers *do* have focusing rings. In some texts, they are mentioned to have "fouled lenses" or other mechanical failures that prevent their operation.

They also, for some unfathomable reason, have breeches. Why this is, I do not know, as it has no cartridge to expel. Still, the IUP tells the Guardsman to ensure that the breech is clear when maintaining his lasrifle.

Psienesis wrote:

Laser light has parallel photons, that is by definition the opposite of focussing.
There is no focussing in a laser
There are no lenses in a laser

40k lasers *do* have focusing rings. In some texts, they are mentioned to have "fouled lenses" or other mechanical failures that prevent their operation.

They also, for some unfathomable reason, have breeches. Why this is, I do not know, as it has no cartridge to expel. Still, the IUP tells the Guardsman to ensure that the breech is clear when maintaining his lasrifle.

Maybe the breech is to vent super heated air from warping the barrel?