# How does a Storm Bolter work?



## Vokshev (Feb 12, 2011)

So today I just drilled out the holes for the storm bolters on my terminators and I realise that if both barrels are going to fire through at the same time, the explosion/shockwave in the barrel will force gas outwards from the side holes in the tip of the storm bolter's barrel, would that not greatly affect or even shift the trajectory of the shots leaving the barrel?

Unless they fire like a split second after each another, ltrigger pull, left,right, trigger pull, left,right.

Or is there not a hole between the two barrel?


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

It's set thousands of years in the future, yet people still fight with swords. Don't look for too much logic in the fluff.


----------



## JelloSea (Apr 12, 2011)

I would Imagine that they would fire off beat(not at the same time). Remember that the amount of propellant when the shots are initially fired is just enough to get the bolt out of the gun, once out it turns into a mini rocket, a stage 2 charge is ignited and the majority of its propulsion happens then.


----------



## Vokshev (Feb 12, 2011)

A Power Sword might makes sense, I mean it is much more effective than a gun if it can rip apart 8 inches thick of armour in close combat.

I am just wondering if there is a 'hole' 'vent' whatever you call it BETWEEN the 2 barrels.


----------



## JelloSea (Apr 12, 2011)

Indeed hand to hand makes sense when you could either fight a battle from far away, shooting at targets that always duck behind cover... OR you could drop pod right next to them and know that their guns cant hurt you because your in power armor and simply chop them to bits. 

As to the hole in the middle... though call, some pictures show the storm bolter with no vent holes at all and others show them with. From a fluff stand point I would either have to say no holes and you get rate of fire instead of accuracy (though some bolt rounds are partially homing so meh) or holes and it fires slower but you can sustain fire longer due to more ammo.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

The Storm Bolter is a Close Quarter Combat Weapon, designed to send out a large number of explosive mass reactive shells, typically found on Terminators who are able to withstand the recoil due to their servo's, and provide a Close Infantry Defence System for Armoured Vehicles.

They aren't meant to be firing highly accurate shots in excess of 300 metres, and at the distances of fighting in the close confines against masses of Genestealers/Orks, then you're not going to need highly accurate shots, so even if the shells was adequately deviated from its path, that it would be an innacurate shot, then it wouldn't be used in a fully automatic fashion.

I'm also willing to bet that at least Astartes Storm Bolters would have a Fire Selector capable of firing a single shell and allowing the servo's to compensate for the accuracy required while a normal human or even marine, would find the weapon's poor weight distribution too much to fire accurately short of a tri-pod.


----------



## JelloSea (Apr 12, 2011)

Eh, don't bolt weapons have very little recoil? I mean their main charge doesn't even activate till its well out of the gun and hell, girls shoot all variants.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

It's not a recoilless rifle like a Charley G, it's a weapon which fires an explosive headed shell. Just because it fires it's main charge after the shot doesn't mean that there's no initial resistance from an explosive flaring against a solid wall.


----------



## JelloSea (Apr 12, 2011)

A bolt is slightly bigger than a paintball(around) so basically a really big shotgun slug. I feel like the gun would recoil like a shotgun which can be taken with 1 arm (and I'm only 130lbs) I really can see a bolter being a hard thing to control. The only down side is the weight of the gun itself.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

They fire slightly after one another, I think. In Soul Hunter, Abaddon hits Talos with his bolter in the Talon of Horus. One of the Night Lords says 'That was a bolter shot!' or something to that effect, and a Black Legion Terminator replies 'Storm Bolter. Two shots.'

That's what makes me think that they're fired seperately. If you can distinguish that it's firing two shots, there's probably a pause in between hits, no matter how minute.

Midnight


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

JelloSea said:


> A bolt is slightly bigger than a paintball(around) so basically a really big shotgun slug. I feel like the gun would recoil like a shotgun which can be taken with 1 arm (and I'm only 130lbs) I really can see a bolter being a hard thing to control. The only down side is the weight of the gun itself.


Go find a .50 fully auto and try to fire it while running forward using only one arm. Please, for the love of god, take a video.


----------



## Vokshev (Feb 12, 2011)

You will have great difficulty using 1 arm to shoot a HKMP5, let alone running.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

there shouldn't be a huge amount of gas released by the initial shot, just enough to start the round off, and i think the strength of the astartes alone would compensate for this, but they should remain quite accurate especially with power armour or terminator armour.

Bolts are a lot bigger than a paint ball. Think .50 cal bullet, but slightly shorter, wider and with a snub nose. Heavy bolters fire a round the size of a fist, but they have little enough recoil that a space marine can fire it with great accuracy.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

mcmuffin said:


> Bolts are a lot bigger than a paint ball. Think .50 cal bullet, but slightly shorter, wider and with a snub nose. Heavy bolters fire a round the size of a fist, but they have little enough recoil that a space marine can fire it with great accuracy.


A bolt is .75 and most paintball rounds are .68.... so not "a lot bigger".


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

I always thought the close combat thing was because there hand guns aren't strong enough and there heavy weapons are too heavy. if the enemies weapons cant penetrate your armour theyre going to have to get up close and pummel you in the head


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

gen.ahab said:


> Go find a .50 fully auto and try to fire it while running forward using only one arm. Please, for the love of god, take a video.


Thats not remotely a fair comparason.

1) Storm bolters are mostly recoiless as their inital charge is merely enough to get the bullet out of the barrel where it ignite and fires its own charge.

2) Its not him thats firing it - its a genetically enhanced super solider stronger than anyone currently alive today.

3) Oh, and not only are they super strong - they are also wearing power assisted armour that will support most of the weight anyway.


So, its more akin to him running along with a toy waterpistol.


----------



## Anarkitty (Jul 29, 2008)

1. I would imagine that there is no vent holes between the barrels. That just seems counterproductive, to vent gas_ into_ the barrel of a round that is about to fire.

2. Bolters have relatively low recoil for the size of their shells because the rocket propelled nature means the initial muzzle velocity is rather low. Still some recoil, but likely there is also recoil compensation and gas vents that reduce it further, given how bulky the casing of the gun is. Then it is placed in the hands of a 7-foot tall superhuman with servo and myomer augmented power armor. I think recoil is probably a non-issue.

3. For some reason, the effective range of most weapons in the 41st millennium is relatively short, especially compared to firearms of today. The effectiveness and proliferation of armor is also greater. The state of war for most races seems to be similar to the early days of black powder weaponry, when heavily armored knights with swords were still easily as effective as musketeers.
Also, close combat is fun and brutal, and fits the general feel of Warhammer 40K, which is probably the biggest reason it is prevalent in the game.


Edit: Whoops, Maidel beat me to my second point. Well said Maidel!


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Anarkitty said:


> Edit: Whoops, Maidel beat me to my second point. Well said Maidel!


Ive learnt over time that the person who compiles the long and detailed post, which is well thought out and composed, often gets beaten by short and sweet.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Thats not remotely a fair comparason.
> 
> 1) Storm bolters are mostly recoiless as their inital charge is merely enough to get the bullet out of the barrel where it ignite and fires its own charge.
> 
> ...


Yes, it is. A .50 weighs around 30 lbs. A storm bolter is a fairly solid box metal that is all concentrated in a relatively small areas. Also, the kick charge it enough to send it out the barrel at fairly high velocity, and it is shown in the books to have a fairly sizable recoil. 

Also, he was comparing it to firing a shotgun in one hand saying that it wasn't difficult. I was simply pointing out that firing one with your arm fully extended, and keeping it accurate while firing on the move, would be a little more difficult than he would think.

Also, I thought it would be hilarious if he did do that. :laugh:


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

gen.ahab said:


> I was simply pointing out that firing one with your arm fully extended, and keeping it accurate while firing on the move, would be a little more difficult than he would think.


Would it be difficult if it was strapped to a gun mount on a tank? Because thats effectively what a marine is in terms of stability.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Would it be difficult if it was strapped to a gun mount on a tank? Because thats effectively what a marine is in terms of stability.


That's more of terminators the norm SM is more like a armored vehicle.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Would it be difficult if it was strapped to a gun mount on a tank? Because thats effectively what a marine is in terms of stability.


Lol no, not quite. A hummvee, or a tank in this case, is a rigid structure, so their would be a bit more play in the marine given his anatomy. Saying it has no recoil is wrong, it has been shown that bolters kick, even when used by a marine, and my comparison was off, aswell. It would be somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Anyone's who's stating that "rocket assisted" has little kickback has obviously never seen the Light Guns/Triple Seven's firing RA Munitions.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

gen.ahab said:


> Lol no, not quite. A hummvee, or a tank in this case, is a rigid structure, so their would be a bit more play in the marine given his anatomy. Saying it has no recoil is wrong, it has been shown that bolters kick, even when used by a marine, and my comparison was off, aswell. It would be somewhere in the middle.


Well, I beg to differ.

It doesnt matter what the anatomy of a marine is, if they have power assisted servos in their armour (which they do) then they effectively have 'suspension'. The best suspension in cars will allow it to drive down a very bumpy road and yet feel nothing inside the car because the suspension travel takes in all those bumps.

The same will be true for the marine - the bolter may 'kick' but so long as that kick is less than the strength of the power armour, it will remain almost totally stationary.

And all of that is considering a 0.75 calibur round fired 'traditionally'. A bolter is not a traditional weapon - MOST (not all) of its momentum is created after it leaves the barrel. Yes there will be some recoil from this - but that is massively less than the kick a traditional rifle creates.

Yes, a marine is not a 'fixed platform' like on a tank, yes he will still 'feel' the recoil - but realistically, that recoil will be absoutely nothing compared to his natural strength and power assisted strength.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Power Armour is not suspension though.

Like Seaweed bends so it doesn't break in the current, so does the compression of air in suspension. A Marines armour either bends to allow for that kickback, and uses those servo's to contain the accuracy, while if it was to keep it static, it would be bouncing around like a belt fed wombat.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Power Armour is not suspension though.
> 
> Like Seaweed bends so it doesn't break in the current, so does the compression of air in suspension. A Marines armour either bends to allow for that kickback, and uses those servo's to contain the accuracy, while if it was to keep it static, it would be bouncing around like a belt fed wombat.


Im not sure I fully understand. I think the suspension concept is the best annalogy for it.

If you watch a challenger II driving along a very bumpy track whilst targeting something you will see that the barrel of the gun stays almost stationary, even though the tank is bouncing up and down like a jumping bean.

Thats how I see marine armour - as he is running along he is targeting the enemy through his helmet link (thats all fluffy - I can pull out sources for that) - and the entire time he is running his body and armour is making constant adjustments to keep the barrel of the bolter pointing where he wants to shoot.

So yes, he is not 'static' because as he ran his gun would be going up and down with him, rather his arms are moving to keep the bolter level and ready to fire at what he is aiming at.

As the gun fires the power armour absorbs the kick (which lets be honest the human shoulder can do, so its not THAT strong) and keeps the gun level for the next shot.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

That's the internal gyro and electronics keeping the barrel of the weapon aimed at it's intended target. You're comparing the eventual effect of the power armours servo's on the marine post ignition, not the actual effect of ignition on the bolter.

As to what the human body "can" do - that's subjective - there are numerous sources of where it was stated to be capable of breaking a humans arm.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Vaz said:


> That's the internal gyro and electronics keeping the barrel of the weapon aimed at it's intended target. You're comparing the eventual effect of the power armours servo's on the marine post ignition, not the actual effect of ignition on the bolter..


Sorry - Im either really tired or really dim - could you explain?

Do you mean that the end result is the same as what I have said, but I got the terminology wrong, or that Im just wrong. :biggrin:


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

Well, suspension would imply the effect is the result of springs and shock absorbers, which in relation to the actual recoil of a firearm would (to me) imply some sort of system utilizing a hydraulic or pneumatic dampening to cushion the recoil, such as used in modern artillery. Terminator Armor does have some sort of powered recoil compensator built into it, but I'm not sure a car's suspension is a good analogy. Stability in humans is provided by the legs, which are effectively our suspension system; I think what you are trying to get at is servos in the arms providing negative feedback to compensate for instability.

To use the Challenger 2 example, suspension would be the bogie wheels that work to keep the whole vehicle relatively stable while in motion, while keeping just the gun barrel stable independent of the vehicle's motion is the function of an electric, gyroscopic stabilization system.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

It is possible to drill the muzzles so that you get two distinct openings, and there are Storm Bolters out there that are modelled with two muzzles (Termie Chaplain, I think?). So, it is entirely possible that there are two distinct Bolters incorporated into a Storm Bolter, making it a real evolution of the Heresy-era Combi-Bolter. In the 'modern' weapon, however, the fire-control is better allowing actual bursts on the move, noy just firing like two Bolters stapled together!

GFP


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Erm, all storm bolters have two barrels.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

Yep, but the OP was describing the muzzles being co-joined and wondering if this 'common muzzle' would be bad for accuracy. I was just saying that the idea of a 'common muzzle' might just be a function of how the model's weapon is drilled. Even if the gun has a 'common muzzle', two barrels is a given. 

GFP


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Excuse me for being really dim - how can it have 2 barrels, but only 1 muzzle?


----------



## JAMOB (Dec 30, 2010)

think 2 circles in an oval. The oval is the muzzle, the circles are the barrels. Its just basically a wider bolter muzzle with 2 holes (barrels) in it for 2 shots.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

JAMOB said:


> think 2 circles in an oval. The oval is the muzzle, the circles are the barrels. Its just basically a wider bolter muzzle with 2 holes (barrels) in it for 2 shots.


But if you have 2 fully formed barrels feeding into that, then it is purely a decorative decision as apposed to an actual design feature.

If people are extrapolating from the models and especially the plastic terminators, its simply a bad bit of sculpting (or the limitation of the mold).


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

Yeah, Maidel is right. Two barrels means two muzzles; it's still two muzzles even if the barrels were contained in an elliptical cylinder. The holes on the sides of the barrels of a storm bolter are muzzle brakes. These allow gases that cause recoil to vent out the sides, reducing muzzle rise.


----------



## IronWarrior123 (Mar 30, 2011)

you all sound like geeks in a star-wars collectable shop


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

IronWarrior123 said:


> you all sound like geeks in a star-wars collectible shop


Welcome to a gaming forum...This game tends to attract geeks.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

IronWarrior123 said:


> you all sound like geeks in a star-wars collectable shop


HAHA - erm - what did you expect?


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

IronWarrior123 said:


> you all sound like geeks in a star-wars collectable shop


I've never been to a star-wars collectable shop, so I'll have to defer to your knowledge and experience in such matters. Sounds a bit nerdy to me, but to each his own, I suppose.


----------



## Cypher871 (Aug 2, 2009)

Vokshev said:


> So today I just drilled out the holes for the storm bolters on my terminators and I realise that if both barrels are going to fire through at the same time, the explosion/shockwave in the barrel will force gas outwards from the side holes in the tip of the storm bolter's barrel, would that not greatly affect or even shift the trajectory of the shots leaving the barrel?
> 
> Unless they fire like a split second after each another, ltrigger pull, left,right, trigger pull, left,right.
> 
> Or is there not a hole between the two barrel?


The Armourer in me has reared it's ugly head...to answer your question correctly, it wouldn't make any difference whether the holes are one either side of the individual barrel muzzles or straight through as their purpose is to deflect the gas to prevent muzzle flash (something not really required in this instance but modeled more for aesthetics than anything else).

In a real pistol, rifle or even tank gun, in most cases the barrel is rifled (a number of machined helical grooves twisting along the entire length of the barrel from breach to muzzle). Rifling of the barrel imparts spin on the projectile, improving ballistic accuracy by gyroscopically stabilizing the round as it leaves the muzzle. Gas cross-venting from one barrel to the other would not affect either round as the flash eliminators on the model are well before the muzzle of the barrels. If anything it may imperceptibly slow the rounds velocity but not nearly enough to affect it. The kinds of speeds a modern round leaves a barrel are more than 4000 feet per second which is about 1200 metres per second - I could only imagine these futuristic weapons would be far more powerful.

In answer to the question of kick, the recoil caused by the gun exactly balances the forward momentum of the projectile according to Newton's third law (wow, I've not had to use Weapon Science in a long time :laugh. If, as others have postulated the bolt shells only require enough kinetic energy to clear the muzzle, this would still amount to a huge level of recoil by real-world standards given the relative size of the boltshell but nothing that a Superhuman, even without the aid of power armour, couldn't cope with.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Cypher871 said:


> but nothing that a Superhuman, even without the aid of power armour, couldn't cope with.


I agreed with everything you said, but just wanted to add that the kick cant be that bad, because SoB have storm bolters and they are just weak and wimpy women.






*Runs for it before any women turn up*:blackeye:


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

Arent they in their own form of power armour?


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

yanlou said:


> Arent they in their own form of power armour?


Yup, but its not strength enhancing, merely power armour protection.


----------



## Cypher871 (Aug 2, 2009)

Maidel said:


> I agreed with everything you said, but just wanted to add that the kick cant be that bad, because SoB have storm bolters and they are just weak and wimpy women.
> 
> *Runs for it before any women turn up*:blackeye:


Just wait till Katie, SGMAlice and the other ladies see this. :laugh: Hope you can run fast.


----------

