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.

Real world physics indeed, does not apply. GW certified cannon does however. They have recoil. As Melissia said, deal with it.

So it's solved then? Aw, I'm gonna miss you, guys.

Belexar wrote:So it's solved then? Aw, I'm gonna miss you, guys.

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be some more arguments in the future.

iproxtaco wrote:Real world physics indeed, does not apply. GW certified cannon does however. They have recoil. As Melissia said, deal with it.

Nah. As Melissia himself said in another thread, not all fluff should be considered equal. GW will slap canon-approved on anything. We need only point to C.S. Goto to prove that. Not to mention GW's long history of retconning, changing mechanics, etc.

And this is one such retcon. The Deathwatch and Dark Heresy corebooks and supplements are rather well written in the fluff, even if they have some issues with skill/talent trees for their various classes.

That's pathetic, just a way for people to explain away their lack of counter argument. Everything that GW approves, in whatever form, is cannon until it's contradicted by a more recent source or officially declared not cannon. Goto, is a moron, his work is horrible, but until it's officially "taken back" by BL or GW, anything inside the book that doesn't fall under the previous two catagories is cannon, although the community as a whole has wisely decided to resign everything he writes to a non-cannon state.

iproxtaco wrote:That's pathetic, just a way for people to explain away their lack of counter argument. Everything that GW approves, in whatever form, is cannon until it's contradicted by a more recent source or officially declared not cannon. Goto, is a moron, his work is horrible, but until it's officially "taken back" by BL or GW, anything inside the book that doesn't fall under the previous two catagories is cannon, although the community as a whole has wisely decided to resign everything he writes to a non-cannon state.

Actually, my counter-argument is based pretty simply on the irrationality of not putting a stock on a weapon that has considerable recoil, but I didn't want to go down that road, as we'd have more people coming out of the woodwork than we've already had to claim they know every last thing about firearms.

GW fluff contradicts itself, all the time. The thing everyone seems to be missing, as helpfully pointed out with a quote from a BL author earlier in the thread, is that GW doesn't care about the nitty-gritty specifics like whether or not a bolter has recoil. They're perfectly fine with it having recoil in one place and not in another. They're perfectly fine with calling it caseless and then using artwork that shows shells everywhere just 'cause it looks badass. In short? They're not nearly as obsessed.

Seaward wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:That's pathetic, just a way for people to explain away their lack of counter argument. Everything that GW approves, in whatever form, is cannon until it's contradicted by a more recent source or officially declared not cannon. Goto, is a moron, his work is horrible, but until it's officially "taken back" by BL or GW, anything inside the book that doesn't fall under the previous two catagories is cannon, although the community as a whole has wisely decided to resign everything he writes to a non-cannon state.

Actually, my counter-argument is based pretty simply on the irrationality of not putting a stock on a weapon that has considerable recoil, but I didn't want to go down that road, as we'd have more people coming out of the woodwork than we've already had to claim they know every last thing about firearms.

Marines don't have a stock on it because to them the recoil is negligible even if to us it is not. Human boltguns are designed to imitate Astartes boltguns, even if it isn't ideal for humans.

As for the rest of text, even if that WAS a BL author's quote and not something you just made up, I don't really give a flying rat's left buttcheek. You know that thing called rule of cool? Lazy, apathetic writing is uncool. That author, if in fact it was an author, can shove it right up his arse.

So, real world physics doesn't apply, except when it backs up your argument. Amazing. You now have no argument at all.

Bolters can have a stock. Just Marines are too cool for it.

Ehm, just because a weapon has recoil doesn't mean it will automatically have a stock.

The 9mm Uzi is stockless (by default) and, yet, has recoil like a mother-fether. The MAC-10 is in the same boat. This is not meant to state that I know everything about firearms... but I know enough to state that the inclusion of a stock is not an automatic consideration in a weapon's production.

The only way a bolter could be recoilless is if it was firing from an open breach with one-stage, self-propelled rounds, with all of the discharge exhaust being vented from the rear/rear sides of the weapon as the round traveled down the barrel. Without such venting... well, there must be some recoil, as the round pushes off against the weapon itself in order to travel down-range, with as much force pushing backwards as it carries going forwards. This is true of either "standard" ammunition (using an explosive charge to achieve lethal velocity before reaching the muzzle) or a gyrojet round with the same concern, which is "lethal at point-blank range", which this class of weapons has demonstrated being.

iproxtaco wrote:So, real world physics doesn't apply, except when it backs up your argument. Amazing. You now have no argument at all.

Actually, real-world physics would support it having recoil, not the reverse. Suggesting that the absence of the most common recoil compensator indicates it lacks recoil in the first place isn't physics, it's a little thing called deductive logic.

Psienesis wrote:Ehm, just because a weapon has recoil doesn't mean it will automatically have a stock.

The 9mm Uzi is stockless (by default) and, yet, has recoil like a mother-fether. The MAC-10 is in the same boat. This is not meant to state that I know everything about firearms... but I know enough to state that the inclusion of a stock is not an automatic consideration in a weapon's production.

Actually, the Uzi isn't stockless. Every example of the M-10 I've seen has a collapsing stock as well, but it's irrelevant; the recoil's pretty bad on it, and it's not meant to fulfill anywhere near the same role as the bolter. It's a suppression weapon. Fully automatic fire is impossible to control on damn near any gun just firing it from the hip, as Marines are so wont to do.

The only way a bolter could be recoilless is if it was firing from an open breach with one-stage, self-propelled rounds, with all of the discharge exhaust being vented from the rear/rear sides of the weapon as the round traveled down the barrel. Without such venting... well, there must be some recoil, as the round pushes off against the weapon itself in order to travel down-range, with as much force pushing backwards as it carries going forwards. This is true of either "standard" ammunition (using an explosive charge to achieve lethal velocity before reaching the muzzle) or a gyrojet round with the same concern, which is "lethal at point-blank range", which this class of weapons has demonstrated being.

That's all perfectly true, from a physics standpoint. But, again...nova cannons, void shields...

Seaward wrote:Actually, real-world physics would support it having recoil, not the reverse. Suggesting that the absence of the most common recoil compensator indicates it lacks recoil in the first place isn't physics, it's a little thing called deductive logic.

I would not call that logic.

I would call that a fallacy.

Seaward wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:So, real world physics doesn't apply, except when it backs up your argument. Amazing. You now have no argument at all.

Actually, real-world physics would support it having recoil, not the reverse. Suggesting that the absence of the most common recoil compensator indicates it lacks recoil in the first place isn't physics, it's a little thing called deductive logic.

Apparently not, according to you it needs a stock to reduce its huge recoil, as it doesn't need one, it therefore has no recoil? Other than this, I can't see that you have an argument that isn't the application of real-world Physics or Logic, which we've already determined don't apply to 40k, as GW writers laugh in the face of physics and logic.

Melissia wrote:

Seaward wrote:Actually, real-world physics would support it having recoil, not the reverse. Suggesting that the absence of the most common recoil compensator indicates it lacks recoil in the first place isn't physics, it's a little thing called deductive logic.

I would not call that logic.

I would call that a fallacy.

I couldn't ask for better confirmation that I'm on the right track.

The fact that you're using logical fallacies to support your claim is not, itself, proof that your claim is false. It's just proof that you are not using proper logic.

Melissia wrote:The fact that you're using logical fallacies to support your claim is not, itself, proof that your claim is false. It's just proof that you are not using proper logic.

I've seen you attempt to employ logic before. Thus, having you accuse me of doin' it wrong makes me cheerfully confident that I'm not.

Seaward wrote:Actually, the Uzi isn't stockless. Every example of the M-10 I've seen has a collapsing stock as well

The collapsing stock on the MAC-10 is an after-market add-on, or a variant model produced under license. Interestingly enough, you're right about the Uzi, I was thinking of the Hafdasa C-4, which came in both stocked (wooden or wire) and stockless variants.

If you check out the new ultra marines movie it has a scene of the bolter firing in slow motion and showing the bolt travel as it leaves the barrel it also has the heavy bolter firing aswell. It shows the SM's somewhat bracing while aiming and firing them. They are still getting jerked as they fire full auto and semi auto. If a space marine gets jolted by a bolt firing then that sucker has some recoil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTkYoAHXuNg 5:55 into the clip big fire fight and bolter shot in slow motion to see it propulsion system which is possible to create with current tech.

I would also postulate that a Space Marine's superhuman physique likely grants him the ability to control recoil on his weapon. It also bears notice that Marines are shock troopers, and thus bolters will not be intended for long range rifle fire. They'll be used at much closer ranges than that...perhaps it is enough that the addition of a stock was deemed superfluous for the Astartes.

In the second ed rulebook it had the different variant pictures of bolter the heresy patterns had stocks but here is the end game for this debate go go wiki http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter

Melissia wrote:
As for the rest of text, even if that WAS a BL author's quote and not something you just made up, I don't really give a flying rat's left buttcheek. You know that thing called rule of cool? Lazy, apathetic writing is uncool. That author, if in fact it was an author, can shove it right up his arse.

*rolls eyes*

Well i would say they do have alot of recoil, in the gaunt's Ghosts novels bragg uses a heavy bolter that was originally pintle mounted and Gaunt mentions how firstly he has never seen any body use on with out power armour and secondly that he struggles with the recoil, also Varl uses a CSM bolter and logs it into an augmatic shoulder and it nearly flattens him any way, so i would say that from this GW approved fluff that yes bolters heavy bolters bolt pistols and every other bolt weapon does in fact have insane recoil, you just need to be a hard man to use one

The real problem here is that different authors have had different takes on the bolter.

The Wiki article noted above contradicts itself by desribing how the initial charge that fires the bolt round is very small, then goes on to say it has powerful recoil - well, is the first or the second?

The Lexicanum entry is, I believe, closest to what all the original fluff described, and to which future authors should have made the effort to stick to -

"The bolter has two advantages over a conventional firearm. Firstly, the amount of propellant required for the first stage is relatively small. This means that with the standard .75 caliber (about 20mm), the recoil is negligible when compared to a conventional projectile weapon of equivalent caliber. Secondly, recoil is further reduced by the smoothbore design of the bolter. Because spin is imparted by the rocket engine after the bolt exits the barrel, there is no need for rifling. The counter to this, however, comes from the fact that bolts are less powerful at closer ranges, as they need time to accelerate to top speed."

I think Ian Watson described the sound of a bolt gun firing the best, from the pages of Harlequin -

"Jaq sniffed the sharp nitric aftermath of propellant which had ignited after each bolf flew from the muzzle.
"Noisy," said Meh'lindi.
Yes, noisy. Yet with hardly any recoil. RAAARK, the gun would utter with each squeeze of the trigger.It hardly bucked at all in one's hand. With a plosive pop it would ejaculate a bolt. With a flaring swish, that bolt would ignite and accelerate away. Then there would come the thud of impact, followed by the blast of detonation.
RAARK-pop-SWOOSH-thud-CRUMP: thet was the lingo of a bolt gun."

The counter to this, however, comes from the fact that bolts are less powerful at closer ranges, as they need time to accelerate to top speed."

Except they aren't.

Dang, got into this one too late, i think that...MELISSA WINS! yes i do have that authority, lol, jk, cool thread

Considering the fact that the bolter's caliber is roughly the same size as a slug round fired from a shotgun, the recoil they have it having in fluff is ridiculous. Yes shotguns kick more than a lot of rifles, but its still manageable.

So, unless they are no longer 2 stage, which is what I thought, fires the round out, ejecting the casing, cycling another round, while the first round leaves the barrel and has the motor ignite. Which would cause less recoil. They have have made it so the round and rocket fire off at the same time, meaning the receiver and bolt would need to be sturdier to withstand the back blast which would make the recoil high.

Really they just wanted their supermen to fire guns they only really wanted the supermen to have.

I'd like to make a second point that bolters in the real world wouldnt have to be as large as a bolter in Warhammer 40k.

I'd like to make a second point that bolters in the real world wouldnt have to be as large as a bolter in Warhammer 40k.

Neither would the shoulder pads but, you know...

In the grim future of the 41st millennium, there is only fething huge war-gear.

Hey man, huge shoulder pads and hats are marks of prestige in 40k.

farmersboy wrote:"Jaq sniffed the sharp nitric aftermath of propellant which had ignited after each bolf flew from the muzzle.
"Noisy," said Meh'lindi.
Yes, noisy. Yet with hardly any recoil. RAAARK, the gun would utter with each squeeze of the trigger.It hardly bucked at all in one's hand. With a plosive pop it would ejaculate a bolt. With a flaring swish, that bolt would ignite and accelerate away. Then there would come the thud of impact, followed by the blast of detonation.
RAARK-pop-SWOOSH-thud-CRUMP: thet was the lingo of a bolt gun."

God, is this representative of all BL writing? It's terrible!

If it makes anyone feel any better... ...I tend to model stocks onto boltguns that I give to my Guard officers who are firing, and having them in braced, kneeling positions. There's a lot of talk about gun-physics on this thread that is innacurate, though. I'll let you figure out which it is by yourselves.