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.

Hi, all.

Now, this isn’t meant to be another fluff-war, so you can put down your second-edition Rouge Trader which is one of the 1/10,000 misprinted copies that actually states the Emperor’s name is Keith the Mighty, and that Orks were originally intended to be the “sexy ones” in WH40K.

Now, onto the OP – I know this is dangerous thinking in the WH40K world, but is there actually a staple-term that differentiates between a stubber and an autogun?

My understanding is that a stubber is on-par with a conventional machinegun from today’s world; which are chambered for conventional metallic, cased ballistic/kinetic ammunition; and auto guns are either self-loading, or fully automatic firearms (either handheld, shoulder-fired, or mounted) which are chambered for caseless ballistic ammunition – and that the term “autogun” actually refers to the firearm’s mechanism, not the type of firearm itself. I swear I read that… somewhere.

Is that right?

Sorry, but you pretty much have to go back to 2e to get this information.

With the exception of Heavy Stubbers, which are (as you said) basically machineguns, the difference is more or less the same as the difference between semi-auto weapons like the Beretta 92F and fully-automatic weapons like an Uzi.

Stub Guns are usually semi-automatic, while Autoguns are usually fully automatic or burst fire enabled.

Personally, I've always seen it this way:

Autopistol: semi-automatic or fully automatic pistols and submachineguns
Autogun: semi-automatic or (more often) fully-automatic rifles
Stub gun: single action or semi-automatic pistols
Heavy stubber: machine gun

Needless to say, there's some overlap between these terms, depending on the model's exact specifics. Generally, I would suspect that anything with "auto" has a smaller calibre than anything with "stub", although I feel it might primarily just be a difference between the rate of fire. You could probably invent even more terms to further categorise anything you think would exist in the setting. For example a bolt-action "stub rifle".

The way I understood it, auto-weapons are caseless while stub weapons aren't (thus, they produce "stubs").

I recall reading that with autoguns they can be caseless, but don't have to. Although I do agree that the "producing stubs" bit sounds like a cool explanation for why they are called that way.

Perhaps they've changed it over the years, for I believe I've seen the caseless reference too. Reading the 1E/2E and Necromunds stuff would probably yield some results.

So far, I always took the "stub" to refer to the general bullet shape - basically "short bullets", or to use some pictures:

I think that's also a cool explanation.

I like it too. ^^

That works... I also like the cased vs caseless slant, too. I note that the FFG sources also make a number of claims that various types of autoguns use "standard caseless rounds", though they don't make this same distinction with stub guns (one could not, for example, have a caseless revolver, without having the rounds integrated into the cylinder, which would need to be either disposable or based on black powder revolvers, in which case reloading the cylinder is a 20 minute process).

Way back when weapons did different things, autoguns had more range, stubs had more hitting power.
A stubgun was a big revolver.
An auto pistol was an uzi.
An autogun was an AK
A stubber was a large barreled rifle (no clip)
A heavy stubber was much like it still is
An autocannon is much like it still is

If you take a look at the necromundia models under the specialists games section, you'll see most of these weapons, as necromundia was created back in the golden days of variety.

-Matt

 Psienesis wrote:
That works... I also like the cased vs caseless slant, too. I note that the FFG sources also make a number of claims that various types of autoguns use "standard caseless rounds", though they don't make this same distinction with stub guns (one could not, for example, have a caseless revolver, without having the rounds integrated into the cylinder, which would need to be either disposable or based on black powder revolvers, in which case reloading the cylinder is a 20 minute process).

You could have a caseless revolver. It would be quicker to load as you wouldn't need to eject the used cases before putting the new rounds in. Caseless just refers to the round itself. You still need some kind of magazine to hold them in.

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.

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

Hmm ... magnets?

Damn, I need to write that down for that gun I made up for Rogue Trader.

Caseless rounds work because the propellant is stable enough that it can be cast around the bullet. For a revolver, just make the cylinders and rounds into interlocking shapes and they won't fall out. Modern revolvers use the lip of the case, but that is not the only way to solve the problem.

On the other hand, it's the work of less than a second to clear the empty cases out of a revolver because you just tip it back with the cylinder out of place and they fall to the ground, so the increased reload speed is so small as to be insignificant.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
On the other hand, it's the work of less than a second to clear the empty cases out of a revolver because you just tip it back with the cylinder out of place and they fall to the ground, so the increased reload speed is so small as to be insignificant.

Or even better - use a case ejector.

But the key benefit of caseles rounds is not the reload speed but the weight saving. If you don't need to carry brass you can carrymore bullets

Check out this page that describes the best advanced modern caseless system, the HK G11
http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:the-g11-caseless-military-rifle&catid=11:rare-prototypes&Itemid=5

There are also pages there on caseless PDWs and an LMG.

Also a second is a long time in combat

 Flinty wrote:
Caseless rounds work because the propellant is stable enough that it can be cast around the bullet. For a revolver, just make the cylinders and rounds into interlocking shapes and they won't fall out. Modern revolvers use the lip of the case, but that is not the only way to solve the problem.

But then you run into the problem of being unable to just shove a round into the cylinder, as you have to line up the interlocking bits to slide into each other, which increases reload time and is definitely sub-optimal under battlefield conditions for the average soldier, who is probably going to have shaking hands due to stress and adrenaline. For a caseless revolver, it makes more sense to have the entire cylinder come out in your hand and you just slap a new, pre-loaded one in place, basically making the revolver's cylinder a magazine equivalent.

Though, in all honesty, in the combat of 40K, whether on the battlefield or in the UnderHive, a revolver is a back-up weapon in the vast majority of cases, and if you're down to your hold-out piece and can't kill whatever it is you're trying to kill in 5 or 6 shots, you probably weren't going to kill them in 12 or 18.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Caseless rounds work because the propellant is stable enough that it can be cast around the bullet. For a revolver, just make the cylinders and rounds into interlocking shapes and they won't fall out. Modern revolvers use the lip of the case, but that is not the only way to solve the problem.

But then you run into the problem of being unable to just shove a round into the cylinder, as you have to line up the interlocking bits to slide into each other, which increases reload time and is definitely sub-optimal under battlefield conditions for the average soldier, who is probably going to have shaking hands due to stress and adrenaline. For a caseless revolver, it makes more sense to have the entire cylinder come out in your hand and you just slap a new, pre-loaded one in place, basically making the revolver's cylinder a magazine equivalent.

Though, in all honesty, in the combat of 40K, whether on the battlefield or in the UnderHive, a revolver is a back-up weapon in the vast majority of cases, and if you're down to your hold-out piece and can't kill whatever it is you're trying to kill in 5 or 6 shots, you probably weren't going to kill them in 12 or 18.

Some sort of cone would seem to be the answer then It would even make it easier for the rounds to find the hole. Close the cylinder and a back plates stops them falling out the back as with modern designs.

If you have to carry around a whole cylinder on each reload it would get even heavier as the cylinder still has to be able to withstand the firing if the shot as it acts as the chamber. The modern speed loading devices for revolvers would also work with caseless rounds if you're that way inclined.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also remember to check out the G11 firing video. The 3 round salvo fire is a think of beauty with the recoil only hitting the firer's shoulder after the final round leaves the barrel

Possibly... but then carrying around loose caseless rounds is the risk of breaking them in your pocket/bandoleer/ammo pouch/what-have-you. The downside of caseless rounds is that they have very poor survival rates in moist environments (compared to brass) and if you drop one, it stands a real good chance of breaking the powder block. The former can be mitigated, somewhat, by a sealant sprayed on the round at some point after its manufacture, though in any event caseless ammo lacks the shelf-life of cased rounds.

Though I note that, for a magazine-fed weapon, you still need to carry magazines around with you, and no one seems to mind *that* much. With the presence of space-metals in 40K, you could probably plasma-forge a steel or adamantine cylinder that would be more than capable of handling firing stress. Might even be able to do it with high-density plastics in low and mid-caliber models.

Or you could just make the whole thing a small rail-gun and magnetically hurl ferrous slugs down the barrel, feeding more slugs into the cylinder when needed, giving you an entire cartridge's weight of ammo to throw down range and ruin someone's day.

I always thought the stubbers had shorter barrels than their autogun conterpart and were normally high caliber. Thereby the lower range but higher strength of these weapons.

Take this with a grain of salt I do not make guns:

Caseless vs cased is an interesting slant on this as well. casless could "theoretically" be made into any basic bullet/propellent configuration so they could theoretically be made to fit into a revolver that looks like a normal revolver. The bullet chamber would have to be different though.

All I'm going to add is that, given the stopping power... there's a reason the Imperium has switched over to lasguns.

Modern caseless rounds might have the problems you describe, but if we're applying future tech to the weapon materials, why not the rounds as well


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And railgun-wise, how heavy is the power source, compared to the rather good energy density of chemical propellant? All these things are feasible, but it doesn't alter the fact that you could have a perfectly valid revolver designed to fire caseless ammo.

With future-tech, the shelf-life might be extended, but no amount of future-tech is going to keep what is basically a block of gunpowder, pressed into a chalkstick-like-consistency and then glued to the back of a lead (or tungsten-nylon, or adamantine or whatever) slug as rugged and all-environment as one cased in brass (or steel or aluminum or meteoric iron or whatever). I can see the caseless autoguns having self-sealed magazines that you just tear a thin foil strip off the top before shoving up the well, and you could even do something like that with a revolver (just peel the tape off the back), but that's, again, a pre-loaded weapon.

Sure, you *could* make a caseless revolver, I've seen them crop up in other games, and even prototype work done with the concept with various CAD designers, I just don't think such a weapon would fit the Munitorum's use-case testing. How often does the IG go to war on a Paradise World, after all?

As for railguns? The Tau seem to do alright with them.

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.

Stub guns represent low quality weapons, home-made pieces and antiquated relics. Necromunda source books are gold mines for information like this.

Though the heavy stubber is a mainstay IG heavy weapon. We would probably call it the M-60D or Browning M-2, depending on how you rate stubber rounds.

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 while the Tau railguns might be anti-material... so what? We're talking about what amounts to a hold-out pistol here. Slow-firing and hard-hitting makes it thematically similar to a plasma pistol... a very, very poor man's version thereof, of course, but, hey.

The Guard doesn't seem to use stub or auto weaponry that much at all, I think. It's probably leftover PDF armaments most of the time. The mainstay IG heavy weapon seems to be the heavy bolter.

Heavy stubbers do have their place in the IG, though. From the Epic description of the DKoK:
"Although at first glance similar to other Imperial Guard squads, the squads of the Siege Regiments make extensive use of heavy stubbers. Although not as effective as autocannons or heavy bolters, they are cheap and easy to produce, allowing Siege Infantry to be lavishly equipped with them."

 Lynata wrote:
Personally, I've always seen it this way:

Autopistol: semi-automatic or fully automatic pistols and submachineguns
Autogun: semi-automatic or (more often) fully-automatic rifles
Stub gun: single action or semi-automatic pistols
Heavy stubber: machine gun

This.

 Lynata wrote:
The Guard doesn't seem to use stub or auto weaponry that much at all, I think. It's probably leftover PDF armaments most of the time. The mainstay IG heavy weapon seems to be the heavy bolter.

Heavy stubbers do have their place in the IG, though. From the Epic description of the DKoK:
"Although at first glance similar to other Imperial Guard squads, the squads of the Siege Regiments make extensive use of heavy stubbers. Although not as effective as autocannons or heavy bolters, they are cheap and easy to produce, allowing Siege Infantry to be lavishly equipped with them."

They also make for popular vehicle armaments. Throw a heavy stubber on there to add to its anti-infantry capability, it's cheap and easy to do, so it's done frequently.

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