BaronIveagh said:

Really? They use similar HUD systems? How do we know this? And why would having similar targeting equipment make you as good a shot as a genetically enhanced super-warrior who can see perfectly, unaided, in the dark? Hmm?

BYE

GalagaGalaxian said:

aka_mythos said:

I think I heard the argument once that they have a shell casing, to propel the bolt out of the barrel so that the constant rocket ignition inside doesn't eventually melt the thing. I will say its been fairly consistant that a boltgun does in fact eject shells (and that it fires a mass reactive missile that detonates after penetration, etc.).

KommissarK said:

The other logial flaw is that If it would melt the gun then it would melt the shell casing and if you had a material that could so easily resist melting it'd be used in the bolter.

I think it comes down to how sophisticated people like to believe the 40k universe to be and the rule of cool in seeing a streem of casings coming out. The simple fact is if its a rocket it doesn't need a casing.

The most logical reason I heard of for use of a conventional propelent method to start the process was to increase initial acceleration in order to prevent the bolt from 'nosing down' to early and artificialy shortening the range. Continious acceleration means that once the Bolt is facing down at all, it'll actualy propel its self into the ground, rather then just falling like a normal bullet. Anyone who's fired a model rocket on a flat trajectory knows what I mean.

Though still, most descriptions I see refer to the bolter as a caseless munition, dispite the modeler's joy of linign up shell casings.

aka_mythos said:

aka_mythos said:

hmmm wasn't a gyrojet pistol produced in the 60's in which the ordinance was a small rocket?

IIRC, yes.

Kage

Darq said:

Yes. And it was caseless by virtue of being self contained, so there was no casing to extract or eject. There are talks about going back to the concept, DARPA is considering it on a guided 20mm sniper rifle and optics set, for a 3 mile range.

aka_mythos said:

See, that right there is your whole problem. You are applying logic to 40K background. 40K background has, as far as I can tell, had no thought or logic put behind it until BI and FFG started putting things down for RPG purposes and had to make excuses and explanations on how things work to appease us, the RPG gamers. There have been a few novels that have tried, but none have tried to hard.

There are a couple of ways to work around the bolt rounds are gyro jets with shell casings.

1: Bolt weapons won't be invented for at least another 10-20,000 years or so, so your expertise , while very interesting to hear from, is invalid.

2: It's 40K. Games Workshop doesn't care. It's made them money, and it looks cool.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Most of these technological discussions have been "taken care of" by simply explaining that the technology levels across the Imperium are not the same. Despite the fact that Forge World X makes Boltguns and so does Forge World Y and Z, they may be using a different STC template (some more advanced, others not so much).

Due to the different patterns, where they are forged, and which Forge World that particular Space Marine chapter gets their munitions from, it could vary greatly in the end result.

Hence, some have shell casings, and others are caseless rounds.

H.B.M.C. said:

Ok, you will shoot better in the dark, but otherwise no reason why that would make a difference. There is no real reason why a Space Marine should be any more accurate than a well trained normal human shooter. None of their abilities really suggest they make them any more accurate, its just they get BS 4 because they are trained to a very good standard (which BS 4 represents, and all other "good" shots get). Now, with their extra strength, improved reactions, greater size, etc, they should be be more capable hand-to-hand combatants, but not necessarily better shots.

Bolters are not caseless... haven't been since somepoint in the 1st edition of 40k (ie before 2nd edition even came around). All artwork since then has shown them ejecting cases when fired (though the very eariliest artwork does indeed only show gases escaping out of the "ejection port", suggesting that their initial conception was as a caseless weapon), pictures of rounds have shown cases, and detailed cutaways make it explicit that cased ammunition is used. When fired the initial charge launches the round out of the barrel. The rocket motor only ignites after the bolt has left the barrel (though some have suggested that Space Marine weapons may have the bolt's rocket ignite before leaving the barrel, resulting in greater recoil but possibly better penetration).

SpawnoChaos said:

Actually, an STC ( Standard Template Construction ) pattern is the same across the board. They were designed so that they could be manufactured from nearly any resource, but over all, they are all the same. The differences would stem from materials, unless operating off of only a partial template.

Also, in regards to Bolt rounds, all written descriptions I've read state they are cased. There is a pre-charge which fires the round from the weapon at a reasonable muzzle velocity, then the rocket kicks in shortly there after, for continued propulsion.

Of course, that said, doesn't mean there can't be some truth in your statements, SpawnoChoas. After all, everything is canon, because information relay and communication is unreliable.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Actually, an STC (Standard Template Construction) pattern is the same across the board. They were designed so that they could be manufactured from nearly any resource, but over all, they are all the same. The differences would stem from materials, unless operating off of only a partial template.

While that's correct, you're assuming there's only one template per kind of item. When the fluff is brimming with stuff like "Mars pattern macrocannons", "Short pattern lasguns" and so on, it's safe to assume that there's pretty much a boatload of different templates, each of which likely had some kind of advantage for some kind of situation while retaining common interfaces.

Brother Praetus said:

They can still be caseless and have a pre-charge, basically the propelent is stuck on the back of the shell suspended in some sort of material that is completely consumed by the ignition.

But that's the joy of the setting, rather than trying to predict the near the future it's set so far in the future with such a strange civilisation that they can do what they want in the name of interesting stories.

Cifer said:

But not everything produced in the Imperium is of STC origin. That's been stated in multiple sources as well. STC devices were sent out with the old colony efforts to provide each group with the knowledge and ability to produce machines of varied nature. While an STC pattern is considered most preferable, and indeed sacred by the Mechanicus, there were minor evolutions of various other patterns that had been in use both before and after the Dark Age. Hell, even some of the common patterns which are of STC origin vary slightly. After all, look at the Chimera and Rhino. The chassis of each is of STC origin, but their many variants typically are not. Hence why the AdMech "approves" different patterns after reviewing them to determine if they are heretekal or not. The most holy and coveted of knowledge is that found in an STC data store.

Face Eater said:

True. I even stated it was possibility because of the level of lost and miscommunication throughout the Imperium. I do not believe a caseless bolt round would be the norm, but it would certainly be possible. However, caseless weapons have overheat issues with sustained fire in modern days; maybe not so much in thirty-eight thousand years or so, but still a possibility.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Brother Praetus said:

However, it should be noted that there is a difference between devices that are actually of STC origin (that is, the original designs) and what the Mechanicus deems to be part of their canon of STC designs; a given Forge World may define a particular Rhino variant or local pattern as STC (and thus canon), even if it's actually a local variation.

The Land Rader Crusader is a good example of this. There is no STC for "Land Raider Crusader" However, there are STCs for "Mounted, Box fed Bolter", "Pintle Mount Multi-melta", "Assault Cannon", "Twin Weapon armor casing", "Land Raider Body", "Land Raider Engine", Etc. All of these parts were put togeather to create a "new" tank that was used, then submitted to the Ad-Mech for final sanctioning. The Ad-mech insure there is no corruption inharent in the machine, then stamp it for production.

After all, Rhinos and Chimeras were originaly STCs for construction equipment, even the mighty Titans were designed for Terraforming work. If there's one thing the Adepts of Mars are skilled at, its straping weapons and armor to anything.

In addition, they probably don't consult the STC everytime they put one together. I would guess the designs drift from STC over the millenia.

Darq said:

Well, no. Though drift is a possibility, remember that the majority of Forge Worlds seem to work like early Industrial Age assembly lines.

So many; say 50,000, menials in Manufactorum B work the lines producing trans-axles for Chimeras. Each "labor unit" on the line has a specific function, and a small lithograph plate indicating what they are supposed to do with the part(s) when it reaches them. Eventually the action becomes rote and mechanical to the worker. Drill, clean, grind, buff, polish. Drill, clean, grind, buff, polish. There is not thought. The line merely works, like a well serviced machine. Drill, clean, grind, buff, polish. Just the way the Priesthood prefers most of humanity to be, near-mindless automata. Drill, clean, grind, buff, polish. All striving to the greater glories of the Omnissiah, and hence, the Emperor.

-=Brother Praetus=-

borithan said:

Seeing the dark does make you shoot more accurately than someone who cannot see in the dark. Yes, that's tautological, but it's true as opposed to claiming that it wouldn't help you shoot more accurately.

And as I said, 40K is a D6 based system, meaning the difference between an Eldar Guardian and a Guardsman or a Storm Trooper and a Space Marine cannot be shown. Things are squashed towards the middle as there are only 6 possible results on a D6 (and 40K has very few modifiers, none of them impacting Ballistic Skill). You think all the WS4 humans are as good as Marines in HTH combat? As good as Aspect Warriors? Come on! There's no WS3.5, so they can't show someone who's better than a Guardsman but not as good as a Marine. The 40K RPG system has no such problem. It can show the difference between a Marine and a Guardsman (T40 vs T40 w/Unnatural Toughness x2 ring a bell? How 'bout Astartes weapons vs regular weapons?).

And this is why making comparisons between 40K and the 40K RPG's in an attempt to ' prove a point ' is, as it happens, point less .

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

Yeah but storm troopers have got funky goggles and targetters for that situation. Likewise being able to see in the dark is a nice bonus but would be wasted if your helmets autosenses couldn't also see in the dark.

Otherwise as you say a D6 system can never show the kind of detail you can get with a D100 system (ro even D10 is some places), but of course if something has a stat of 5 in the TT it's going to have better RPG stats than something with the same stat at 4 in the TT game right?

ItsUncertainWho said:

The fact is that GW's fluff says something that directly contradicts the artwork. All I was saying is that based on my expertise the fluff makes more sense than the artwork and then explained why I thought that. So you really shouldn't think yourself clever since you obviously didn't read what I wrote and just took a single sentence fragment out of context to make the point you wanted to make.

Bolt rounds are described as caseless not as Gyrojets. Gyrojets are just an example of rockets rounds that are caseless. So a round can't be both caseless and have a case at the same time. One is the direct antithesis of the other.

I'm not trying to define how a bolt round works, I'm not trying to describe a 20,000 year advance piece of technology. I'm saying GW is using words to describe something, that those words have specific meanings, that if we can assume those words do in fact mean what their dictionary definition says they both can't be true. They are caseless or they are not.

aka_mythos said:

Simple answer to this - GW writers are geeks, not advanced weapon designers or engineers. Some have backgrounds in relevant industries, or are massive enthusiasts (see the Imperial Armour books and how better thought out the vehicles in there are to GW-written books), but generally they are just sci-fi hobbyists turned writers.

Kasatka said:

aka_mythos said:

I'm pretty sure that I read that there was an initial charge that propelled the bolt from the weapon before the rocket motor fired. On the other hand, I have wondered, if this is the case, why the recoil would be more on a SM bolter...if they are all indeed the same calibre.

Anyway, if this is the case, it could explain a shell casing. The small charge would need to either be in a shell or a solid block of propellant. We have all seen the pictures of the bolt rounds, and they certainly don't appear to be a caseless round.

Maybe this has been brought up in later posts, and if so, I apologize.