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.

 Psienesis wrote:
The problem you're having. Swastakowey, is that you're ignoring 28,000 years of arms advancement between now and M30 when the Great Crusade kicks off. That length of time is nearly three times the length of time since Mankind first became a thing and today.

the main point i have and am making is the heavy bolter/bolter is just too small to be feasably made at that caliber and portability. It would end up like an artillery shell, just uselessly expensive.

But they did and can. It's a two-stage gyrojet mass-reactive explosive shell fired from a carbine-style assault weapon.

The heavy version is a bigger two-stage gyrojet mass-reactive explosive shell fired from a hip-aimed, or tripod-mounted, heavy-barrel weapon. It is not designed for one-man operation, unless that one man is a bioengineered super-soldier in a strength-enhancing, nuclear-powered armor-plated linear frame.

The bolter round hits you, its solid diamantine tip smashing through whatever excuse for armor you wear, triggering the microsecond delay of the explosive round until it's inside your body. The round then detonates, basically shattering, which leaves a hole in your chest the size of a man's fist (and probably also collapses both your lungs and shreds your heart. You're fethin' dead!)

In terms of a dual mode explosive, that is not particularly difficult to achieve per say. We've been able to do that since at least the 1960s with anti-runway munitions, and at a certain level since the 40s with bunker buster munitions. Indeed, it does not necessarily require a main munition to achieve the effect. DPU rounds are meant to penetrate and then 'explode' the target (3 rounds from an A-10 can effectively atomize a battle tank), hydro shock pistol rounds are simply shaped to penetrate and then blow out, the 5.56mm round originally designed for the M-16 was actually known to be deflected by leaves in the jungle yet could kill a man by hitting him in the arm (the bullet would penetrate skin or similar material and then fragment inside the body, bouncing off of bones to cause maximum internal trauma beyond say the AK-47's 7.62 which had better penetration).

As a note, you don't need the heavy bolter to blow a hole the size of a man's fist out. A hydroshock round for a 9mm pistol that is manufactured today will do the exact same thing. It also being cheaper and not requiring magical materials. Heck, a .357 revolver will do that with a modern round without needing a hydroshock bullet.

Back on to the original topic, avoiding lighter yet stronger materials, many modern 25mm weapons start around 100kg sans ammunition. They become efficient as anti-material/anti-structural weapons due to their size and also 'punch', but also due to the ammo storage capacity that can be held in a vehicle. Such a weapon, even if possible to make light enough to carry, would be constrained simply by poor ammunition capacity. Even supposing you were strong enough to carry it and fire it, you couldn't carry enough rounds to make it truly worthwhile as an anti personnel weapon. The autogun could carry a 100 round magazine with munitions that would perform just as well for anti infantry, have a better firing rate, make less noise, weigh less, etc than a bolter/heavy bolter. The Marine with a bolter might get 10 bullets in his gun, the IG trooper could get 50, 100 in a smaller, lighter, easier to use weapon that would make him much more of a threat.

I suppose it just feeds the cc imagery 40k likes, the Marines all run around beating you in the face because they would always be out of ammunition long before they've even put a dent in your forces.

Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

Yes but its not rocket propelled is it, nor is it the same caliber. So its a different weapon. There are weapons which share some properties of the bolter but no weapon that can have them all in one.

They could, actually, but what I described would be "close enough" to a bolter (and require no further arms refinements or inventions). It also makes it practical and useable, since we don't actually have Space Marines to wield them.

As others have posted, there's even heavier munitions that are capable of doing what bolters do, as well as ammunition for standard small-arms that get "close enough" to the bolter to replicate it as a weapon of war, for all practical intents and purposes.

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

I know but is it a boltgun? No. Timed explosives have been used in rounds for a very long time. But nothing mentioned in any arsenal is a bolt gun. I read it all and all i see are some guns that have something similar to a bolt gun in one or 2 ways but nothing that works and fires like a boltgun.

Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on. And the close range lethality means nothing to a boltgun because it still technically fires the bullet then the rocket goes off, something we havent made except in the form of artillery shells.

Saying we can make one is just guessing

Close enough isnt a bolter, its an almost bolter. But thats pretty much what i am saying. I dont think its yet possible to put all the bolter features into one package.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

Yes but its not rocket propelled is it, nor is it the same caliber. So its a different weapon. There are weapons which share some properties of the bolter but no weapon that can have them all in one.

Did you now even read the links anyone even posted?! What the hell man, we've all been pointing this out to you, WE DO! We have the tech. We've had it for years. We could start the process of building one right now, and we might even make a better bolter. It's a case of modern technology going beyond the vision. We actually can build something better, and work on making it better than it is in W40K.

As for what the future looks like? Drones, drones drones, smart ammo that guides itself to the target (possibly even capable of rounding corners), laser AA, active camouflage, better armor, and possibly the start of powered suits being produced for logistics rather than combat.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

Yes but its not rocket propelled is it, nor is it the same caliber. So its a different weapon. There are weapons which share some properties of the bolter but no weapon that can have them all in one.

Did you now even read the links anyone even posted?! What the hell man, we've all been pointing this out to you, WE DO! We have the tech. We've had it for years. We could start the process of building one right now, and we might even make a better bolter. It's a case of modern technology going beyond the vision. We actually can build something better, and work on making it better than it is in W40K.

As for what the future looks like? Drones, drones drones, smart ammo that guides itself to the target (possibly even capable of rounding corners), laser AA, active camouflage, better armor, and possibly the start of powered suits being produced for logistics rather than combat.

Yea we have it seperately not all together in one weapon. We have weapons that acheive its effects but not a bolter nor can we say one can be made. At best we can make almost bolters. In fact that one example i gave is more a bolter than anything you guys gave. And well thats not a bolter either.

Future? Who knows dude. Someone tomorrow could stuble accross a new weapon that we have never imagined and change the way we think. Seriously the future is never what we think it is. I agree at the moment things are looking at some of the things you pointed out, but something will come along and change all that, maybe (who knows). Look at what people thought about weapons before and after the world wars. Drastically different views over the course of under 10 years. Crazy stuff.

Should I rename the thread to "IRL theory of Boltgun"?

I'm surprised it still entertain you to argue.

Sorry i will stop now dude, i came back because i found that rocket propelled bullet pistol. Thought it was pretty epic

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
We have explosive rounds. We have frangible rounds. We have armor piercing rounds.

A combination of explosive or frangible properties and the armor-piercing property (possibly through the use of a sabot round) would be the best to replicate a bolter.

Craft it in .30 and .50 cal. Make the .30 magazine fed and the .50 belt fed. Put the .30 in a rifle and the .50 in a modified Browning M2. Now you have a bolter and a heavy bolter.

Yes but its not rocket propelled is it, nor is it the same caliber. So its a different weapon. There are weapons which share some properties of the bolter but no weapon that can have them all in one.

Did you now even read the links anyone even posted?! What the hell man, we've all been pointing this out to you, WE DO! We have the tech. We've had it for years. We could start the process of building one right now, and we might even make a better bolter. It's a case of modern technology going beyond the vision. We actually can build something better, and work on making it better than it is in W40K.

As for what the future looks like? Drones, drones drones, smart ammo that guides itself to the target (possibly even capable of rounding corners), laser AA, active camouflage, better armor, and possibly the start of powered suits being produced for logistics rather than combat.

Yea we have it seperately not all together in one weapon. We have weapons that acheive its effects but not a bolter nor can we say one can be made. At best we can make almost bolters. In fact that one example i gave is more a bolter than anything you guys gave. And well thats not a bolter either.

Future? Who knows dude. Someone tomorrow could stuble accross a new weapon that we have never imagined and change the way we think. Seriously the future is never what we think it is. I agree at the moment things are looking at some of the things you pointed out, but something will come along and change all that, maybe (who knows). Look at what people thought about weapons before and after the world wars. Drastically different views over the course of under 10 years. Crazy stuff.

Dude, all the technology I just stated is real and exists currently. In the future it simply will go beyond prototyping and go into full mas production. We already have fully automated bombers and make widespread (and infamous) use of hunter-killer drones. We're developing recon drones soldiers can hold. We're developing offensive drones the size of a Frisbee soldiers can use to deliver a small explosive at an indirect target with minimal collateral. We've developed smart bullets capable of righting themselves mid-flight on the way to their target and increase the accuracy of snipers/riflemen over a mile by eight inches. We've developed point-defense laser turrets now being mounted on ships capable of shooting down missiles, drones, and small naval units/mauling them. We're developing active camouflage for tanks that can disguise their heat signature and make them look like a cow through infra-red. We're developing non-directly piloted tank drones. We've developed powered suits.

We know what the future's going to be like because the future simply is the result of technology we're creating right now which will affect the warfare a decade or possibly even less before it.

And no, you have nothing backing you incredibly strange and hilariously wrong position that we cannot built a heavy bolter. Just because you ignore everyone doesn't make you right.

EDIT-

And OP, the thread's jacked because the purpose was served back on page one. Heavy bolters are over a hundred pounds. Woop, topic done.

Close enough isnt a bolter, its an almost bolter. But thats pretty much what i am saying. I dont think its yet possible to put all the bolter features into one package.

Unfortunately, this is an incorrect assumption. As has been demonstrated, it's very possible. However, you keep moving the goal-posts.

The reason it's not built somewhere is because such a weapon is useless to a real-world, modern military, as it offers no tangible tactical benefit over a standard battle-rifle and costs a hell of a lot more.

Right, I mean, we're not exactly trying to kill unfathomably tough, insanely brave war-loving mushroom-men here.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Sorry i will stop now dude, i came back because i found that rocket propelled bullet pistol. Thought it was pretty epic

It was epic. I didn't know something like this even exist.
I already got answer for my question, but If you want to continue, I can rename the thread to more usitable name.

 Hawky wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Sorry i will stop now dude, i came back because i found that rocket propelled bullet pistol. Thought it was pretty epic

It was epic. I didn't know something like this even exist.
I already got answer for my question, but If you want to continue, I can rename the thread to more usitable name.

No no its all good, now this is seriously the last one. But yea unfortunately the weapon has many flaws which is why its not continued. Along with being expensive. But one day someone might crack it and then boom, we shall have the bolter

In terms of the future of war look at the past dude. World war one? the navy was the future of war, huge dreadnaught ships with amazing weapons and so on. After a few years? They proved useless as the airoplane came into play (which everyone thought would be useless in war by the way). The result? Dreadnaughts where replaced by battleships and other classes and the airforce proved to be huge and evolved quickly.

World war 2 was huge for the tank, first time tanks had ever been used and the way they where used changed drastically over the years, nothing like people thought it would at the time. Let alone how submarines came into play after being dismissed as unconventional and so on by world powers.

Those are 2 basic examples (and i mean basic) of what to expect in the next real conflict. Expect for the way we use our weapons and what we use to change big time over the first part of the war. then the final part of that wars tactics will lay the foundation of future warfare theory only for the same thing to repeat. In an ever evolving system of warfare theory is the only thing you got until the real thing comes.

In short, the future is always a mistery but everything has happened in the past before.

 Swastakowey wrote:


Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on.

10 seconds on Google

http://hackedgadgets.com/2013/08/18/spin-stabilized-rocket/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_(rocket)

Also there are lots of militarised rockets with folding or pop-out fins for stabilisation. The 12g frag round apparently being one of them.

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

That's more or less what I was saying (unless this wasn't directed at me): 25mm is large and heavy, great on a vehicle, bad for infantry (even 7ft tall super soldiers) given that it's effects as an anti personnel weapon can be replicated through other means that would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to mass produce and use in combat. As an intantry portable anti material weapon, we can again produce better, cheaper, lighter, etc. The heavy bolter, as a weapon, would be a very poor anti personnel weapon as the round itself is too big to carry in sufficient quantities by a person for the kill radius of a single round, while it isn't so great an anti material weapon that you'd lug something that heavy with munitions like that around by a man. I could equip a trooper with an rpg launcher and 5 rpgs and still have him combat effective with a fancy assault rifle plus underslung grenade launcher for less, have it weigh less, carry more ammo through diversity (more bullets for the gun, plus about a similar number of explosives for both the rpg and underslung as I could get with just the 25mm rounds), more mobility, and thus a more effective deployment system.

Could you 'carry' and 'use' a heavy bolter, yes I suppose. Would it actually be effective, no, not really in comparison. Could it be built? Absolutely. Would you need to or want to? Absolutely not as a man carried weapon. A 6in long by 1in in diameter shell is silly as a man portable anti personnel system for a 'machine gun'.

 Flinty wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on.

10 seconds on Google

http://hackedgadgets.com/2013/08/18/spin-stabilized-rocket/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_(rocket)

Also there are lots of militarised rockets with folding or pop-out fins for stabilisation. The 12g frag round apparently being one of them.

Bloody hell, so im back. Sorry dude but does that look like it would make a good bullet to you? i think not. They clearly tried rocket propelled rounds on a small scale and it didnt work. Small arms and rocket propelled bullets dont work very well. Until someone gives it a shot you cant say its possible, that becomes speculation.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

That's more or less what I was saying (unless this wasn't directed at me): 25mm is large and heavy, great on a vehicle, bad for infantry (even 7ft tall super soldiers) given that it's effects as an anti personnel weapon can be replicated through other means that would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to mass produce and use in combat. As an intantry portable anti material weapon, we can again produce better, cheaper, lighter, etc. The heavy bolter, as a weapon, would be a very poor anti personnel weapon as the round itself is too big to carry in sufficient quantities by a person for the kill radius of a single round, while it isn't so great an anti material weapon that you'd lug something that heavy with munitions like that around by a man. I could equip a trooper with an rpg launcher and 5 rpgs and still have him combat effective with a fancy assault rifle plus underslung grenade launcher for less, have it weigh less, carry more ammo through diversity (more bullets for the gun, plus about a similar number of explosives for both the rpg and underslung as I could get with just the 25mm rounds), more mobility, and thus a more effective deployment system.

Could you 'carry' and 'use' a heavy bolter, yes I suppose. Would it actually be effective, no, not really in comparison. Could it be built? Absolutely. Would you need to or want to? Absolutely not as a man carried weapon. A 6in long by 1in in diameter shell is silly as a man portable anti personnel system for a 'machine gun'.

The thing is, the lighter round of other weapons may not be effective against Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Barghesti, Tau Fire Warriors, Squiggoths, other Space Marines, Hrud, Yuuvath, or any one of the million other aliens that show up in the setting.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Flinty 573286 6442781 2b7in 82a7ec6de40781fd6ef338b41892.jpg wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on.

10 seconds on Google

http://hackedgadgets.com/2013/08/18/spin-stabilized-rocket/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_(rocket)

Also there are lots of militarised rockets with folding or pop-out fins for stabilisation. The 12g frag round apparently being one of them.

Bloody hell, so im back. Sorry dude but does that look like it would make a good bullet to you? i think not. They clearly tried rocket propelled rounds on a small scale and it didnt work. Small arms and rocket propelled bullets dont work very well. Until someone gives it a shot you cant say its possible, that becomes speculation.

You didn't specify bullets, you merely stated that you had never seen rockets without stabilising fins in a manner implying that such a foolish notion could never have been tried and made work at all.

Gyrojet ammo did absolutely "work" is just wasn't reliable hence it never really got anywhere, and probably why bolt-type rounds have never been seriously considered. Is it speculation that we could make such a thing now? Yes, of course, but given that the principles of all the fundamental parts of a bolter round are well understood there is no technical reason why we couldn't make such a round with modern materials. I'm not arguing for their effectiveness or efficiency, merely their possibility.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Yes there are weapons have have the same effect as a bolt gun, but there isnt a boltgun and i see no evidence that one can be created. Not without going through so many changes that it ends up nothing like a boltgun. And by guided i mean being able to fly straight, there arent any rockets i think of without some kind of guide fins and so on.

10 seconds on Google

http://hackedgadgets.com/2013/08/18/spin-stabilized-rocket/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_(rocket)

Also there are lots of militarised rockets with folding or pop-out fins for stabilisation. The 12g frag round apparently being one of them.

Bloody hell, so im back. Sorry dude but does that look like it would make a good bullet to you? i think not. They clearly tried rocket propelled rounds on a small scale and it didnt work. Small arms and rocket propelled bullets dont work very well. Until someone gives it a shot you cant say its possible, that becomes speculation.

It's not a bullet. It's a 20mm missile that uses black powder to fire it out of the barrel before the booster fires (pretty much a miniature SABOT round come to think of it). Seriously man, do you even know how the basic bolter shells work? It's not a bullet. It's a 20mm fully automatic cannon firing rocket-propelled shells that ignite after being kicked out the barrel. This increases in size when you go from the normal .75 caliber bolter and up to the 1.00 caliber.

Are you just going to keep handwaving and paying zero attention to everything we say while you hold no information to support your (wrong) opinion? Because in that case I might as well just add you to my ignore list for you handwaving evidence with nothing supporting you for do so besides 'because reasons'. It's as much a 'bullet' as the .75 caliber rounds used in anti-tank rifles in WWII, or 20mm Anti-Aircraft cannons.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

That's more or less what I was saying (unless this wasn't directed at me): 25mm is large and heavy, great on a vehicle, bad for infantry (even 7ft tall super soldiers) given that it's effects as an anti personnel weapon can be replicated through other means that would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to mass produce and use in combat. As an intantry portable anti material weapon, we can again produce better, cheaper, lighter, etc. The heavy bolter, as a weapon, would be a very poor anti personnel weapon as the round itself is too big to carry in sufficient quantities by a person for the kill radius of a single round, while it isn't so great an anti material weapon that you'd lug something that heavy with munitions like that around by a man. I could equip a trooper with an rpg launcher and 5 rpgs and still have him combat effective with a fancy assault rifle plus underslung grenade launcher for less, have it weigh less, carry more ammo through diversity (more bullets for the gun, plus about a similar number of explosives for both the rpg and underslung as I could get with just the 25mm rounds), more mobility, and thus a more effective deployment system.

Could you 'carry' and 'use' a heavy bolter, yes I suppose. Would it actually be effective, no, not really in comparison. Could it be built? Absolutely. Would you need to or want to? Absolutely not as a man carried weapon. A 6in long by 1in in diameter shell is silly as a man portable anti personnel system for a 'machine gun'.

The thing is, the lighter round of other weapons may not be effective against Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Barghesti, Tau Fire Warriors, Squiggoths, other Space Marines, Hrud, Yuuvath, or any one of the million other aliens that show up in the setting.

You couldn't carry enough 25mm rounds to make the Heavy Bolter effective either (at least against people). 30 rounds, maybe, for the ammo carrier to load? That doesn't equate to 30 dead people. The GAO apparently stated something like 250,000 rounds per killed insurgent. So, even factoring out just random carp, you can't get down to 30 rounds kills 1 guy. Other stats I've seen suggest 20k rounds per kill in WW2 and 50k per kill in Vietnam. The gun with the 100 round, 200 round, 300 round hopper can put up comparable AP rounds. With 30 rounds you aren't suppressing anything for any length of time.

You'd run out of ammo too quickly to make the heavy bolter effective even if you could carry it around, the ammo is just to bulky to carry in sufficient quantity. This is why it could work as a vehicle weapon (storage space becomes more of a non issue) but not as a troop weapon. We know it doesn't take a 25mm shell to penetrate the armor of most of these people or even kill them, so no need to lug around a massively heavy weapon and very little ammo which would net little to no effect when we can design effectively better weapons with "inferior" technology.

The Heavy Bolter is around, because of 40k's 'bigger is better' mo, not because it would be effective.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Did you read the OICW link? 25mm diameter explosive rounds are rather commonplace on vehicles ans apparently an ideal for infantry anti-materiel weapons. With the introduction of the 12 gauge frag rounds you don't even need a fancy weapon to fire such things. The idea that it is beyond our current capability to make an effective bolt weapon is a bit off. We just don't need one.

The bipropellant idea could theoretically overcome the gyrojet accuracy problem and the close range lethality problem. Bolt rounds aren't guided anyway, so that is a bit of a red herring. Modern explosive rounds can have a variety of fusing mechanisms, from simple impact to timed flight, so the slight impact delay should be easy. To be honest though, if they are fitting shaped charges into shotgun rounds that is probably a better bet for armour piercing rounds than fincy hard tips. Nothing says gotcha like a superheated jet of combustion gasses and copper plasma lances to the torso

That's more or less what I was saying (unless this wasn't directed at me): 25mm is large and heavy, great on a vehicle, bad for infantry (even 7ft tall super soldiers) given that it's effects as an anti personnel weapon can be replicated through other means that would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to mass produce and use in combat. As an intantry portable anti material weapon, we can again produce better, cheaper, lighter, etc. The heavy bolter, as a weapon, would be a very poor anti personnel weapon as the round itself is too big to carry in sufficient quantities by a person for the kill radius of a single round, while it isn't so great an anti material weapon that you'd lug something that heavy with munitions like that around by a man. I could equip a trooper with an rpg launcher and 5 rpgs and still have him combat effective with a fancy assault rifle plus underslung grenade launcher for less, have it weigh less, carry more ammo through diversity (more bullets for the gun, plus about a similar number of explosives for both the rpg and underslung as I could get with just the 25mm rounds), more mobility, and thus a more effective deployment system.

Could you 'carry' and 'use' a heavy bolter, yes I suppose. Would it actually be effective, no, not really in comparison. Could it be built? Absolutely. Would you need to or want to? Absolutely not as a man carried weapon. A 6in long by 1in in diameter shell is silly as a man portable anti personnel system for a 'machine gun'.

The thing is, the lighter round of other weapons may not be effective against Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Barghesti, Tau Fire Warriors, Squiggoths, other Space Marines, Hrud, Yuuvath, or any one of the million other aliens that show up in the setting.

You couldn't carry enough 25mm rounds to make the Heavy Bolter effective either (at least against people). 30 rounds, maybe, for the ammo carrier to load? That doesn't equate to 30 dead people. The GAO apparently stated something like 250,000 rounds per killed insurgent. So, even factoring out just random carp, you can't get down to 30 rounds kills 1 guy. Other stats I've seen suggest 20k rounds per kill in WW2 and 50k per kill in Vietnam. The gun with the 100 round, 200 round, 300 round hopper can put up comparable AP rounds. With 30 rounds you aren't suppressing anything for any length of time.

You'd run out of ammo too quickly to make the heavy bolter effective even if you could carry it around, the ammo is just to bulky to carry in sufficient quantity. This is why it could work as a vehicle weapon (storage space becomes more of a non issue) but not as a troop weapon. We know it doesn't take a 25mm shell to penetrate the armor of most of these people or even kill them, so no need to lug around a massively heavy weapon and very little ammo which would net little to no effect when we can design effectively better weapons with "inferior" technology.

The Heavy Bolter is around, because of 40k's 'bigger is better' mo, not because it would be effective.

It works with Space Marines because they're able to carry a vehicle's worth of ammo. It just doesn't work with modern infantry or the guard for that manner as, for reasons you stated, they'll just burn through all their available ammo in short order. They're better off sticking to lascannons or a multilaser.

(Logistically, the lasgun is among the best weapons in all of Sci Fi for simply it's reliability.)

While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

It should also be noted that intelligent Astartes use their bolters as a semiautomatic rifle, not a full-auto machine gun. It's only the dumb ones that spray and pray.

If you read the 40k RP books, there are gun attachments that are like grav tripods. You just clip it on the gun and its like the gun floats and you barely have to lift it.

Sort of, but the suspensor devices are both rare and not-that-effective.

Our DH group had a gun-bunny Assassin that did not have the Encumbrance Limit to carry her MP Lascannon very far, even with a suspensor unit.

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

There is no way on even 40k terra there is 30 rounds in a bolter, no artwork has ever made a clip big enough to contain that many rounds. Those are like 10-15 round clips in the artwork.

Here is a 50 round 7.62mm clip as a reference.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/5212/907877400/wm_1483739.jpg

Note it in comparison to the gun. Now, a 25mm round is between 3 to 4 times the size.

Take a 30 round clip again and compare

http://www.southernoutdoorlife.com/mouseguns/sub2000/ak47.jpg

The clip for a bolter is shorter even than this, with at a scale of 3 to 1 means you are scrapping to even get 10 rounds into a bolter, 30 would be good for a Heavy Bolter to even approach. Yes they could carry more ammo, but not in massive quantities to make a HB worth it as a sustained fire weapon or squad support weapon, which is the tactical roll it is supposed to fill.

It's less a question of weight as it is bulk, the Marine isn't sufficiently 'big' enough to carry truly large quantities and noting in the art or modeling would back up anything different.

Marines are just lucky, their 6 shot revolver actually carries as many bullets as needed until it's dramatic to reload like something from a B movie Western.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

There is no way on even 40k terra there is 30 rounds in a bolter, no artwork has ever made a clip big enough to contain that many rounds. Those are like 10-15 round clips in the artwork.

Here is a 50 round 7.62mm clip as a reference.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/5212/907877400/wm_1483739.jpg

Note it in comparison to the gun. Now, a 25mm round is between 3 to 4 times the size.

Take a 30 round clip again and compare

http://www.southernoutdoorlife.com/mouseguns/sub2000/ak47.jpg

The clip for a bolter is shorter even than this, with at a scale of 3 to 1 means you are scrapping to even get 10 rounds into a bolter, 30 would be good for a Heavy Bolter to even approach. Yes they could carry more ammo, but not in massive quantities to make a HB worth it as a sustained fire weapon or squad support weapon, which is the tactical roll it is supposed to fill.

It's less a question of weight as it is bulk, the Marine isn't sufficiently 'big' enough to carry truly large quantities and noting in the art or modeling would back up anything different.

Marines are just lucky, their 6 shot revolver actually carries as many bullets as needed until it's dramatic to reload like something from a B movie Western.

Nah, it's obvious bolter magazines simply contain a portal into hammerspace containing an endless dimension of bolter shells and only discard magazines after the portal's busted from the heat of having so many rounds extracted.

I would think bolters would be extreamly good at what they are designed for, Fear and Carnage.

Bolters were designed during the Unification Wars and the Horus Heresy. Their whole point is to put the fear of Man in the rest of the universe. Stealth is not really what they are made for, so arguing about their effectiveness in a stealth mission is missing the point. They are supposed to be so loud when they fire and so devastating when a round connects, that you will think twice about shooting back at the. Even if it is inaccurate, the fact it has a meter blast radius instead of just plinking the ground would make a round a lot more deadly than a .556 round fired in recent times.

A bolter is illegal under the current tenets of the Geneva Convention. "Explosive projectiles weighing less than 400 grams eclaration of Saint Petersburg 1868" also "Weapons that cause superfluous pain or injury, more damage than is minimally required for incapacitate"

I would say it would be a pretty terrifying weapon to go against.

Alot of this has been said before, but I wanted to jump in.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, realistically speaking, it should be noted that Space Marines never run out of bullets unless it is dramatically appropriate that they do so.

*That* is some technology that we should be investigating!

Though the 30 rounds is the main boltgun, not the heavy bolter, which packs 200 in the backpack, iirc.

There is no way on even 40k terra there is 30 rounds in a bolter, no artwork has ever made a clip big enough to contain that many rounds. Those are like 10-15 round clips in the artwork.

Here is a 50 round 7.62mm clip as a reference.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/5212/907877400/wm_1483739.jpg

Note it in comparison to the gun. Now, a 25mm round is between 3 to 4 times the size.

Take a 30 round clip again and compare

http://www.southernoutdoorlife.com/mouseguns/sub2000/ak47.jpg

The clip for a bolter is shorter even than this, with at a scale of 3 to 1 means you are scrapping to even get 10 rounds into a bolter, 30 would be good for a Heavy Bolter to even approach. Yes they could carry more ammo, but not in massive quantities to make a HB worth it as a sustained fire weapon or squad support weapon, which is the tactical roll it is supposed to fill.

It's less a question of weight as it is bulk, the Marine isn't sufficiently 'big' enough to carry truly large quantities and noting in the art or modeling would back up anything different.

Marines are just lucky, their 6 shot revolver actually carries as many bullets as needed until it's dramatic to reload like something from a B movie Western.

DH lists the standard boltgun as packing 24, you are trying to apply real-world logic to 40K, and that is both a fallacy and the path to madness.


As far as Marines carrying extra ammo? They're encased in strength-enhancing ceramite. Slap some magnets to your magazines and then slap them onto your PA. You could probably fit ten mags on each leg, and another three on each forearm.

Vrakas wrote:

A bolter is illegal under the current tenets of the Geneva Convention. "Explosive projectiles weighing less than 400 grams eclaration of Saint Petersburg 1868" also "Weapons that cause superfluous pain or injury, more damage than is minimally required for incapacitate"

Interesting point, but there must be some way around it, or else all current grenade launchers and 20-25mm explosive rounds would be against it.