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.

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
Space marines should of had a special 4 barrel lasgun so they can be rapid fire a total of 8 shots at 12" or 4 shots at 24" at the low strength of 3, no ap, 1 damage no ability.

The power armor has a nuclear reactor generator for power...or was that the terminator...or was that something else, anyways the power armor can carry a large power bank on the back to power the quad barrel lasgun.

Now that is the weapon marines should of had.

But you expect a space marines to shot effectively to kill, not to spray and pray. That kind of weapons look like spray and spray.

As stated by somebody else, the space marines are propaganda figures: even if the lore justifies their uses of boltguns instead of basic flashlights, the simple rule of the mist badass would apply to them. GW considered (and many a player is fine with that I believe) that firing little rpg rockects is awesome. Who would want a space marine have to fire a dozen lasers to take down an ork? It's so much more over the top and 40k-ish to have such beasts torn apart by a single well aimed shell!

Disclaimer: not starting a fight or actually cpuntering you, just using as starting point.

As far as magazines... The Armée Française, when it came to consider the issue of cumbersome guns within transports and any environment, developped the Famas. The magazine varies from 25 to 30 rounds, so they definitly didn't try to reduce weight or needed spave by cutting the mag short. But the Famas on the other hand, deals with it by being bullpup designed, that's to say, reduced barrel, as someone stated.

Oh, and it dealt with the prone postition probleme you mentionned when firing by adding pods to the weapons that you can deploy!

I always felt that boltguns were semi-automatic; Space Marines not seeding to fire on auto as they would tend to hit more than miss, so volume of fire was less important. And that slightly slower, deep, chug, chug noise of semi-auto fire would fill an enemy with much more dread. Much more fitting for shock/terror troops as their role is often implied to be. Supply being generally less of a problem as they aren't really expected to be carrying out protracted campaigns - get in, kill the big bad, bugger off and let the Guard mop up.

I also felt that the Imperial Guard should have stuck with more las weapons, and fewer if any solid projectile types, except for tanks; simply for the sake of easier logistics - as all las weapons use the same powerpacks (or at least they once did!).


Separately, having fired weapons with a 30 rnd magazine, doing so from prone is not particularly difficult even in awkward terrain - though the ones I've used were bullpups, so that may have made it easier (L85, L86). (Only in simulated combat, or on a range though)

I'm 90% sure Bolters can switch between semi and full auto.

I always imagined both bolters and lasguns to have semi and fully automatic fire modes. I also imagine 95% of the time Marines only need to fire on semi-automatic, due both to the lethality of the rounds and the high marksmanship of the shooter.

Lasguns are a bit different, to my mind, seeing as their "ammo" is a power-pack and not a set number of rounds. As well as semi and auto modes, I imagine there being output modes; "full" or "overcharge", "half" or "regular charge", and maybe even a "power-save" setting of a lower output to stretch the life of power packs/cells in times of emergency. The higher the output, the farther the shot can travel and the more penetration, but also the quicker the drain and fewer the shots per pack/cell. Similarly, the longer the trigger is held down while on fully automatic the more the shots get progressively weaker/slower as the pack/cell is drained.

That depends on the pattern of the lasgun, but usually, yeah, that's the case.

Based on both RPGs and more detailled tabletop games like inquisitor, neither bolters nor lasguns have fully automatic, only semi-automatic.

That's the major advantage autoguns have over lasguns - full auto for suppressing fire - and according to siege of vraks, it's one reason why militia and PDF forces - who don't have to worry about interstellar logistics - often prefer solid shot weapons (the other being the lower tech base needed to build them and the ease of 'upgrading' them with specialist ammo - tracer, manstopper, dumdum, tox, etc - where needed).

In terms of translating rifle power to lasguns; the agrippina pattern autogun (the one most cultists carry) eats an 8mm rifle cartridge. Whilst you can't automatically assume equivalence of propellant power, that's a bullet not a million miles from an AK47's 7.62mm rifle round, rather than the 5.56 NATO standard.

pm713 wrote:
I'm 90% sure Bolters can switch between semi and full auto.

Agreed, so must lasguns, also for the latter just as much as for the former, there ar emany "sub-models" of the weapons which might have dfferent characteristics.

locarno24 wrote:
Based on both RPGs and more detailled tabletop games like inquisitor, neither bolters nor lasguns have fully automatic, only semi-automatic.

TT profiles written for game balance =/= the lore/fluff.

That's the major advantage autoguns have over lasguns - full auto for suppressing fire - and according to siege of vraks, it's one reason why militia and PDF forces - who don't have to worry about interstellar logistics - often prefer solid shot weapons (the other being the lower tech base needed to build them and the ease of 'upgrading' them with specialist ammo - tracer, manstopper, dumdum, tox, etc - where needed).

See above. You use TT game profiles for bolters/lasguns, yet change to fluff when describing autoguns. Tell me, how do the TT profiles of autoguns compare to those of bolter and las weapons? I'm curious.

locarno24 wrote:
Based on both RPGs and more detailled tabletop games like inquisitor, neither bolters nor lasguns have fully automatic, only semi-automatic.

That's the major advantage autoguns have over lasguns - full auto for suppressing fire - and according to siege of vraks, it's one reason why militia and PDF forces - who don't have to worry about interstellar logistics - often prefer solid shot weapons (the other being the lower tech base needed to build them and the ease of 'upgrading' them with specialist ammo - tracer, manstopper, dumdum, tox, etc - where needed).

In terms of translating rifle power to lasguns; the agrippina pattern autogun (the one most cultists carry) eats an 8mm rifle cartridge. Whilst you can't automatically assume equivalence of propellant power, that's a bullet not a million miles from an AK47's 7.62mm rifle round, rather than the 5.56 NATO standard.

Many novels, including Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain describe both lasguns and bolters being fired on full-auto.

HexHammer wrote:
Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.

IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?

Imo SM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.

IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.

Ballistic based weaponry are sensitive to wind and weather, if the target moves suddenly when you fire, the projectile will miss. Besides the amount of ammo you have to carry around would be insane just for a few weeks engagement.
On the contrary with a las based weapon a SM could in theory have unlimited supply of ammo with his powerpack.

Bolts are far more devastating, they explode inside the body. In terms of realism and physics there is really nothing that could survive that, if the bolt penetrated the explosion would cause so much pressure it would kill anything biological, even apart from the actual explosion the trauma from the pressure build up alone would be catastrophic, apart from maybe biotitans but still if you swallowed a fire cracker, there isn't much chance you'd have a second meal. Kinda like the Armageddon explanation the NASA guy gives. Even vehicles like dreadnoughts and titans, if a a bolt ever was able to penetrate it would cause havoc, wires, pistons and electronics being destroyed. Kinda the equivalent of a few melta bombs in a battle ship reactor.

Anyone have any idea what the actual explosive force of a bolt is? It's a 75cal round, so how much explosive can you pack in there taking into account the armour piercing jacket and detonators etc?

Well we have 20mm explosive ammo, so I am guess something similar.

Banville wrote:
Anyone have any idea what the actual explosive force of a bolt is? It's a 75cal round, so how much explosive can you pack in there taking into account the armour piercing jacket and detonators etc?

Still the psi would be extreme as well as the shock wave and mach stem formation; which can increase the yield of the initial explosion, plus the extreme barotrauma effects etc. So if it doesn't blow you apart the initial explosion would be far greater.

75 cal round on its own would cause huge trauma. I’m not military but I am a paramedic and am very familiar with ballistic trauma. U talk about the pressure damage from an explosive round, before that you would have the cavitation caused by a high volocity round going through the soft tissue. Dependent upon the speed of the round it can be as much as thirty times the diameter of the round. With 75cal being rocket propelled the velocity is going to be high and the cavitation huge. It’d be lucky to have any tissue left to explode in hitting a human size target. Anyone who has seen someone hit by a 50cal gun will know the devastation that causes.

There are very few parts of a human sized body that can take that large a trauma not have vital bits damaged. And as for stopping power, as in stopping a target from moving, that kind of hole would stop a target in its tracks. Hard to run when your legs have come off.

I always think of the bolter as a terror weapon. If it hits normally armoured humans they would be obliterated, anyone near by be be left in a carnal scene of meat and bits all over the place. It would be horrific. If you were lucky enough to survive you would be mentally traumatised by the events. I know real world doesn’t apply much to 40k. But the bolter, even if they didn’t explode would be a horrific weapon.

Banville wrote:
Anyone have any idea what the actual explosive force of a bolt is? It's a 75cal round, so how much explosive can you pack in there taking into account the armour piercing jacket and detonators etc?

I think that’d depend on the nature of the explosives. Consider where we’ve come in that department in the last couple of hundred years.

Andykp wrote:
75 cal round on its own would cause huge trauma. I’m not military but I am a paramedic and am very familiar with ballistic trauma. U talk about the pressure damage from an explosive round, before that you would have the cavitation caused by a high volocity round going through the soft tissue. Dependent upon the speed of the round it can be as much as thirty times the diameter of the round. With 75cal being rocket propelled the velocity is going to be high and the cavitation huge. It’d be lucky to have any tissue left to explode in hitting a human size target. Anyone who has seen someone hit by a 50cal gun will know the devastation that causes.

There are very few parts of a human sized body that can take that large a trauma not have vital bits damaged. And as for stopping power, as in stopping a target from moving, that kind of hole would stop a target in its tracks. Hard to run when your legs have come off.

I always think of the bolter as a terror weapon. If it hits normally armoured humans they would be obliterated, anyone near by be be left in a carnal scene of meat and bits all over the place. It would be horrific. If you were lucky enough to survive you would be mentally traumatised by the events. I know real world doesn’t apply much to 40k. But the bolter, even if they didn’t explode would be a horrific weapon.

On a human sized enemy sure, larger pray, that can survive the initial 50 cal penetration, then the pressure and the mach stem formation damage comes in.

They’re definitely terror weapons, but also designed to be highly efficient.

Aside from ‘my mate just exploded on me’, they’re not weapons to really inflict flesh wounds. Even a glancing hit is going to put you down, even if it doesn’t kill you.

Marines may be nuts hard, but they work so much better when every shot counts!

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
But the Famas on the other hand, deals with it by being bullpup designed, that's to say, reduced barrel, as someone stated.

Bullpups do not have a reduced (or greatly reduced if you prefer) barrel length, they have a full size rifle barrel, that is the entire point behind the bullpup design. Its purpose is to provide a full size rifle in the package of a carbine. The most common issue with a bullpup however is that their triggers are not usually as nice as a standard rifle, and their reload.

For example on length,
FAMAS F1/G2 Length: 757mm (29.8 in)
FAMAS F1/G2 Barrel Length: 488 mm (19.2 in)

M16 Series Length: 1,003mm (39.5 in)
M16 Series Barrel Length: 508mm (20 in)

M4 Series Length: 840mm (33 in) Stock Fully Extended, 756mm (29.75mm) Stock retracted
M4 Series Barrel Length: 370mm (14.5 in)

As you can see, the FAMAS is roughly the same size as the M4 Carbine with its stock in, while offering a barrel length barely shorter than the M16 Rifle. Smaller package with the same range. It was replaced because it was getting long in the tooth and had some issues.

That said, and honeslty Im not sure why bullpups were brought up cause I only skimmed the thread. A bullpup Boltgun could have advantages for the Astartes, but Im not sure exactly how many. As a rocket assisted projectile (and not a Gyrojet, like people assume) the barrel and initial propellant would mostly just be there to stabilize the round and provide its initial punch (also assist with short range killing where the rocket motor might not have had a chance to fully engage.

Bull pup bolt guns would be a pain to model and paint up too! The extra punch of the explosive inside the 70 cal round is meant for bigger meaner targets. Marines are made to tackle all the bad guys in the galaxy.

I always try to imagine what the scene would look like when a intercessor squad blows up a squad of wyches or cultists! Even one shot killing each target the mess and collateral damage would be horrendous.

I’m sure if they really existed nearby people to a target would be injured to by shrapnel and bone fragments flying around when targets came apart. The effect of hard targets and infrastructure would much more depend on type of round I guess and it’s clear folk on here know much more than me about it but on topic the horrific nature of the bolter suits the marines better than a laser weapon. Nothing persuades a person to follow the imperial truth better than a 7’ super soldier blowing their family into pieces.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
But the Famas on the other hand, deals with it by being bullpup designed, that's to say, reduced barrel, as someone stated.

Bullpups do not have a reduced (or greatly reduced if you prefer) barrel length, they have a full size rifle barrel, that is the entire point behind the bullpup design. Its purpose is to provide a full size rifle in the package of a carbine. The most common issue with a bullpup however is that their triggers are not usually as nice as a standard rifle, and their reload.

For example on length,
FAMAS F1/G2 Length: 757mm (29.8 in)
FAMAS F1/G2 Barrel Length: 488 mm (19.2 in)

M16 Series Length: 1,003mm (39.5 in)
M16 Series Barrel Length: 508mm (20 in)

M4 Series Length: 840mm (33 in) Stock Fully Extended, 756mm (29.75mm) Stock retracted
M4 Series Barrel Length: 370mm (14.5 in)

As you can see, the FAMAS is roughly the same size as the M4 Carbine with its stock in, while offering a barrel length barely shorter than the M16 Rifle. Smaller package with the same range. It was replaced because it was getting long in the tooth and had some issues.

That said, and honeslty Im not sure why bullpups were brought up cause I only skimmed the thread. A bullpup Boltgun could have advantages for the Astartes, but Im not sure exactly how many. As a rocket assisted projectile (and not a Gyrojet, like people assume) the barrel and initial propellant would mostly just be there to stabilize the round and provide its initial punch (also assist with short range killing where the rocket motor might not have had a chance to fully engage.

What I meant was simply that it was less lengthy on the outside. But thanks for bringing more elements to the thread, that's useful of course.

Actually the FAMAS's design is said to be the main reason why it's such a "sensitive" gun, demanding an incredible amount of maintenance. Which is basically why France'll be swapping for german HK 416, but it's sad to see that iconic, french gun about quit in our own army .

I don't know how would a bullpup boltgun perform but hell, that's be damn badass anycase!

Also aggred, with everyone who mentionned it, the space marines rely heavily on psychology. They want to terrify the enemy to cripple him, and the inhumanly devastating effects of a bolt (not even mentionning HEAVY bolt) are a very, very, sapping view to the moral...

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
But the Famas on the other hand, deals with it by being bullpup designed, that's to say, reduced barrel, as someone stated.

Bullpups do not have a reduced (or greatly reduced if you prefer) barrel length, they have a full size rifle barrel, that is the entire point behind the bullpup design. Its purpose is to provide a full size rifle in the package of a carbine. The most common issue with a bullpup however is that their triggers are not usually as nice as a standard rifle, and their reload.

For example on length,
FAMAS F1/G2 Length: 757mm (29.8 in)
FAMAS F1/G2 Barrel Length: 488 mm (19.2 in)

M16 Series Length: 1,003mm (39.5 in)
M16 Series Barrel Length: 508mm (20 in)

M4 Series Length: 840mm (33 in) Stock Fully Extended, 756mm (29.75mm) Stock retracted
M4 Series Barrel Length: 370mm (14.5 in)

As you can see, the FAMAS is roughly the same size as the M4 Carbine with its stock in, while offering a barrel length barely shorter than the M16 Rifle. Smaller package with the same range. It was replaced because it was getting long in the tooth and had some issues.

That said, and honeslty Im not sure why bullpups were brought up cause I only skimmed the thread. A bullpup Boltgun could have advantages for the Astartes, but Im not sure exactly how many. As a rocket assisted projectile (and not a Gyrojet, like people assume) the barrel and initial propellant would mostly just be there to stabilize the round and provide its initial punch, also assist with short range killing where the rocket motor might not have had a chance to fully engage.

What I meant was simply that it was less lengthy on the outside. But thanks for bringing more elements to the thread, that's useful of course.

Actually the FAMAS's design is said to be the main reason why it's such a "sensitive" gun, demanding an incredible amount of maintenance. Which is basically why France'll be swapping for german HK 416, but it's sad to see that iconic, french gun about quit in our own army .

I don't know how would a bullpup boltgun perform but hell, that's be damn badass anycase!

Also aggred, with everyone who mentionned it, the space marines rely heavily on psychology. They want to terrify the enemy to cripple him, and the inhumanly devastating effects of a bolt (not even mentionning HEAVY bolt) are a very, very, sapping view to the moral...

Also forgot that the FAMAS other issue is that its operating system, Lever Delayed Blow Back, has issues with ammo pressures. It has to be fairly specific, which can be problematic if the French needed to get ammo from US soldiers in a combat zone. It is sad to lose an Icon like that, but the 416 is a good platform.

So far there is one Bullpup Boltgun, the one Azrael caries, and I would like to see more just based off that one. Even if it technically wouldn't function as there is no way for the round to actually get to the chamber.



I do agree with you and everyone on the effect on morale, the damage caused by the round and the report, combined with the Astartes hard hitting strikes would shatter morale of many of their more common opponents. Its why the chainsword is also a thing, and why it and the boltgun are the iconic weapons of the Astartes, they'd terrify most things.

I'd like to see more underslung combi weapons in general, the top special bottom bolter ones always seemed silly to me.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'd like to see more underslung combi weapons in general, the top special bottom bolter ones always seemed silly to me.

Yeah when they are special weapon on top makes it look like a plasma gun with a auxiallary bolter added. It seems like lazy model making to me. I’d never noticed how daft azraels gun is. Can’t unsee that now!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'd like to see more underslung combi weapons in general, the top special bottom bolter ones always seemed silly to me.

Yeah when they are special weapon on top makes it look like a plasma gun with a auxiallary bolter added. It seems like lazy model making to me. I’d never noticed how daft azraels gun is. Can’t unsee that now!

Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.

+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.

I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!

I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.

+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.

I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!

I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.

Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.

+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.

I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!

I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.

Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.

It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.

+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.

I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!

I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.

Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.

It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.

No, boilters have lots of different rounds so so they don't have the same hitting power. Lasguns cannot change the strength of their laser, hotshots are a different weapon all together. Lasguns have one mode of strength.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.

+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.

I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!

I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.

Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.

It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.

No, boilters have lots of different rounds so so they don't have the same hitting power. Lasguns cannot change the strength of their laser, hotshots are a different weapon all together. Lasguns have one mode of strength.

To clarify - an indvidual bolter, regardless of exact caliber, will always have the same power, whether that is a 60-cal explosive, or 75cal Kraken Bolt. The same round fired from the same gun will have the same power, regardless or whether its fire at 1 RPM or 300RPM.

Hotshots are not a different weapon, they are an up-powered Lasgun with external power source. To break it down, a single lasgun power pack holds 50 standard shots, but could also theoretically hold 1-5 stronger shots. The energy consumption of the pack is the same, but the shot is different in strength and volume. You can fire many weaker shots or fewer stronger shots. This of course assumes a variably setting on a Lasgun which is not always going to be the case but could be possible on certain models.

A boltgun with a 30 round mag is always going to have 30 rounds and each shot is going to have the exact same power as the other 29.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.

+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.

I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!

I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.

Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.

It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.

No, boilters have lots of different rounds so so they don't have the same hitting power. Lasguns cannot change the strength of their laser, hotshots are a different weapon all together. Lasguns have one mode of strength.

To clarify - an indvidual bolter, regardless of exact caliber, will always have the same power, whether that is a 60-cal explosive, or 75cal Kraken Bolt. The same round fired from the same gun will have the same power, regardless or whether its fire at 1 RPM or 300RPM.

Hotshots are not a different weapon, they are an up-powered Lasgun with external power source. To break it down, a single lasgun power pack holds 50 standard shots, but could also theoretically hold 1-5 stronger shots. The energy consumption of the pack is the same, but the shot is different in strength and volume. You can fire many weaker shots or fewer stronger shots. This of course assumes a variably setting on a Lasgun which is not always going to be the case but could be possible on certain models.

A boltgun with a 30 round mag is always going to have 30 rounds and each shot is going to have the exact same power as the other 29.

Not true, a normal round will have more energy absorbed on impact than an armour piercing round. It has the same initial projectile force, but they do not have the same power on impact. Hotshots 'are' a different weapon. A lascannon is technically just an up-powered lasgun. Lasguns cannot theoretically shoot stronger shots, otherwise they would act that way. A hotshot is an 'advanced' lasgun they need coolant systems and reinforced barrels etc. They are a completely different weapon.